Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-1216 PECTHIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code of the is Town of Vail on December 16, 1996, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request for a side setback variance in order to construct a two car garage, located at 4532 Streamside Circle East /Lot 15, Bighorn 4th Addition. Applicant: Lillian and William Bresnahan, represented by Kathy Langenwalter Planner: Lauren Waterton A request for a minor subdivision to create two primary /secondary lots and a variance from the 30' minimum frontage requirement, located at 2339 Chamonix Lane/Tract A, Vail Heights, Filing 1. Applicant: Robert Hunter (AKA Schmetzko), represented by Rick Rosen Planner: George Ruther A request for a variance to allow for two satellite dishes, located at 2099 N. Frontage Road West/ Vail Commons. Applicant: KTUN Planner: Tammie Williamson A request for a review of a new water storage tank, located on an unplatted parcel of land in East Vail Applicant: Eagle River Water and Sanitation District • Planner: Russell Forrest A request for a minor subdivision to relocate the common property line between Lots 7 and 8, located at 666 and 696 Forest Road /Lots 7 and 8, Block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing. Applicant: Neil and Nancy Austrian Planner: Lauren Waterton A request for an amendment to the condition of approval for the Town of Vail Public Works expansion pertaining to employee housing at the site. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Andy Knudtsen A request to amend Sections 18.27.030, 18.29.030, and 18.30.030 of the Zoning Code to allow van storage /transportation related businesses in the Commercial Core 3, Arterial Business, and Heavy Service Zone Districts as a conditional use and add Sections 18.04.415 and 18.04.385 providing definitions for vehicle storage yard and transportation business. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Dominic Mauriello //1111//// The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479 -2114 voice or 479 -2356 TDD for information. Community Development Department Published November 29, 1996 in the Vail Trail. Agenda last revised 12/10/96 ]pin • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Monday, December 16, 1996 AGENDA Project Orientation / Lunch - Community Development Department 11:30 am MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Site Visits : Please bring adequate footwear for a snowy site visit 12:30 pm 1. Bresnahan - 4532 Streamside Circle East 2. Hunter - 2339 Chamonix Lane 3. Water District - unplatted parcel in East Vail 4. KTUN Radio - Vail Commons Driver: George NOTE: If the PEG hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m. Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for a minor subdivision to relocate the common property line between Lots 7 and 8, located at 666 and 696 Forest Road /Lots 7 and 8, Block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing. Applicant: Neil and Nancy Austrian Planner: Lauren Waterton 2. A request for a minor subdivision to create two Primary /Secondary residential lots and a request for a variance from the 30' minimum street frontage requirement, located at 2339 Chamonix Lane/Tract A, Vail Heights, Filing 1. Applicant: Robert Hunter (AKA Schmetzko), represented by Rick Rosen Planner: George Ruther 3. A request for a side setback variance to allow for the construction of a two -car garage, located at 4532 Streamside Circle East/Lot 15, Bighorn 4th Addition. Applicant: Lillian and William Bresnahan, represented by Kathy Langenwalter Planner: Lauren Waterton 4. A request for a variance from Section 18.58.320, Satellite Dish Antennas, D1, 3, 4, 6, to • allow two satellite dishes to be installed at the northwest corner of the Vail Commons property, located at 2099 N. Frontage Road West/ Vail Commons. Applicant: KTUN Radio Planner: Tammie Williamson Agenda last revised 12/10/96 spin 5. A request for a review of a new water storage tank, located on an unplatted parcel of land in • East Vail, generally located southeast of 5004 Snowshoe Lane. Applicant: Eagle River Water and Sanitation District Planner: Russell Forrest 6. A request to amend section 16.20.020 and to add section 16.04.065 of the Sign Code to allow for electronic signs as Public Information Signs. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented by Joe Macy Planner: Dirk Mason 7. A request for a worksession to discuss establishing a Special Development District overlay to the Austria Haus, located at 242 East Meadow Drive /on part of Tract C, Block 5 -D, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gordon Pierce Planner: George Ruther 8. A request to amend the Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan and adopt the Gerald R. Ford Park Management Plan. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Larry Grafel, Pam Brandmeyer, Todd Oppenheimer. Planner: George Ruther • 9. A request for an amendment to a condition of approval for the Town of Vail Public Works expansion pertaining to employee housing, located at 1309 Vail Valley Drive /on an unplatted parcel, north of Vail Village, 8th Filing. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Andy Knudtsen 10. A request to amend Sections 18.27.030, 18.29.030, and 18.30.030 of the Zoning Code to allow van storage /transportation - related businesses in the Commercial Core 3, Arterial Business, and Heavy Service Zone Districts as a conditional use and add Sections 18.04.415 and 18.04.385 providing definitions for vehicle storage yard and transportation business. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Dominic Mauriello 11. Information Update: 12. Approval of November 11, 1996, November 25, 1996 and December 9, 1996 minutes. The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. • Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479 -2114 voice or 479 -2356 TDD for information. Community Development Department Published December 13, 1996 in the Vail Trail. iPLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Monday, December 16, 1996 FINAL AGENDA Project Orientation / CHRISTMAS LUNCH - Community Development Department 11:30 am MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Gene Uselton John Schofield Greg Amsden Diane Golden Greg Moffet Galen Aasland Henry Pratt Site Visits : Please bring adequate footwear for a snowy site visit 12 :30 pm 1. Water District - unplatted parcel in East Vail 2. Bresnahan - 4532 Streamside Circle East 3. Austrian - 666 and 696 Forest Road 4. Hunter - 2339 Chamonix Lane • Driver: George NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m. Public H•. • 1 Council Chambers 11 • 1. A request for a minor subdivision to relocate the common property line between Lots 7 and 8, located at 666 and 696 Forest Road /Lots 7 and 8, Block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing. Applicant: Neil and Nancy Austrian Planner: Lauren Waterton VOTE: 7 -0 TABLED, PER APPLICANT'S REQUEST, TO JANUARY 13,1997 MEETING 2. A request for a minor subdivision to create two primary /secondary lots and a request for a variance from the 30' minimum street frontage requirement, located at 2339 Chamonix Lane/Tract A, Vail Heights, Filing 1. Applicant: Robert Hunter (AKA Schmetzko), represented by Rick Rosen Planner: George Ruther VOTE: 6 -0 -1 ( Amsden abstained) APPROVED WITH THREE CONDITIONS (PER MEMO): 0 1) That the TOV Public Works Department review and approve the proposed conceptual driveway and grading plan submitted by the applicant. 2) That the applicant add the following note to the final plat: "Future development on the two lots shall be restricted to the area within the platted building envelopes. This srestriction shall include all decks, roof eavelines, etc. The only development permitted outside the platted building envelopes shall be landscaping, at grade patios, driveways, and retaining walls associated with driveway construction." 3) That the applicant make the following changes on the final plat prior to recordation: Remove the "TRACT A" label. Change GRFA numbers to 5,766.1 sq. ft. for Lot 1 and to 5,314.4 sq.ft. for Lot 2. Change BLM to U.S. Forest Service, as it relates to property ownership. 3. A request for a side setback variance to allow for the construction of a two -car garage, located at 4532 Streamside Circle East/Lot 15, Bighorn 4th Addition. Applicant: Lillian and William Bresnahan, represented by Kathy Langenwalter. Planner: Lauren Waterton VOTE: 6 -0 TABLED TO JANUARY 13, 1997 MEETING 4. A request for a review of a new water storage tank, located on an unplatted parcel of land in East Vail, generally located southeast of 5004 Snowshoe Lane. Applicant: Eagle River Water and Sanitation District Planner: Russell Forrest VOTE: 6 -0 APPROVED WITH SIX CONDITIONS: 1) Keep existing tank but mitigate hazard, repaint and plant trees to buffer. 2) That amore specific revegetation plan be prepared that identifies the exact seed mix that will be used and the planting of Aspens downhill from the tank. 3) That no lighting will occur on the site. 4) That the access road be realigned on the property to be obtained through the land exchange. The removal of the old tank may facilitate the ability to keep the road entirely on the exchange property. 5) Add gate to block access. 6) Do not pave road. No hard surface. 5. A request for a worksession to discuss establishing a Special Development District overlay to the Austria Haus, located at 242 East Meadow Drive /on part of Tract C, Block 5 -D, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gordon Pierce Planner: George Ruther Worksession - No Vote .7 C� • .APW '0. • 6. A request for an amendment to a condition of approval for the Town of Vail Public Works shops expansion, pertaining to employee housing, located at 1309 Vail Valley Drive /on an unplatted parcel, north of Vail Village, 8th Filing. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Andy Knudtsen VOTE: 6 -0 APPROVED WITH CONDITION 7. A request to amend Sections 18.27.030, 18.29.030, and 18.30.030 of the Zoning Code to allow van storage /transportation - related businesses in the Commercial Core 3, Arterial Business, and Heavy Service Zone Districts as a conditional use and add Sections 18.04.415 and 18.04.385 providing definitions for vehicle storage yard and transportation business. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Dominic Mauriello VOTE: 6 -0 RECOMMEND APPROVAL 8. A request for a variance from Section 18.58.320, Satellite Dish Antennas, D1, 3, 4, 6, to allow two satellite dishes to be installed at the northwest corner of the Vail Commons • property, located at 2099 N. Frontage Road West/ Vail Commons. Applicant: KTUN Radio Planner: Tammie Williamson TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 13, 1997 9. A request to amend the Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan and adopt the Gerald R. Ford Park Management Plan. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Larry Grafel, Pam Brandmeyer, Todd Oppenheimer. Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 13, 1997 10. A request to amend section 16.20.020 and to add section 16.04.065 of the Sign Code to allow for electronic signs as Public Information Signs. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented by Joe Macy Planner: Dirk Mason TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 13,1997 • 11. Information Update: *Appointment of one PEC representative to the Art in Public Places Board (AIPP). This Board meets twice a month (2nd & 4th Thursdays) from 8:30am to r . approximately 10:30am. The duration of the term would be consistent with the member's PEC term duration. 0 TABLED TO JANUARY 13, 1997 MEETING 12. Approval of November 11, 1996, November 25, 1996 and December 9, 1996 minutes. APPROVED 6 -0 The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479 -2114 voice or 479 -2356 TDD for information. Community Development Department Published December 13, 1996 in the Vail Trail. c: • n U r1 LJ MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 16, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision of Lots 7 and 8, Block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing, located at 666 and 696 Forest Road. Applicant: Neil and Nancy Austrian Planner: Lauren Waterton I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicants, Neil and Nancy Austrian, are proposing a minor subdivision of Lots 7 and 8, Block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing. The applicants own both lots and are proposing to relocate the existing common lot line between Lots 7 and 8 (see attachment). The developed lots are located on the south side of West Forest Road. The proposed minor subdivision would result in increasing the lot area for Lot 8 and decreasing the lot area for Lot 7. II. BACKGROUND • On June 11, 1964, the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners approved a final plat for Vail Village 6th Filing, establishing Lots 7 and 8. • On August 23, 1966, the Vail Village 6th Filing was established as a part of the Town of Vail. III. ZONING ANALYSIS The purpose of the Zoning Analysis depicted below is to provide the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) with an understanding of the impacts on the applicable development standards, resulting from the minor subdivision being proposed of Lots 7 & 8. Development Standard Lot 7 existing proposed Total Lot Area: 33,170 sq. ft. 23,218.8 sq. ft. (0.7615 acre) (0.5330 acre) Total allowable GRFA: 6,259 sq. ft. 5,422 sq. ft.. Total Allowable Site Coverage: 6,634 sq. ft. 4,644 sq. ft. Minimum Lot Size: Yes Yes (15, 000 sq. ft. of buildable area) 1 Lot 8 existing 43,076 sq. ft. (0.9888 acre) 6,754 sq. ft. 8,615 sq. ft. Yes proposed 53,026.8 sq. ft. (1.2173 acre) 7,251 sq. ft. 10,605 sq. ft. Yes Does the lot meet the size/ shape Yes Yes Yes Yes requirement of 80' X 80'? • Allowable Density: 2 dwelling 2 dwelling 2 dwelling 2 dwelling units w/ one units w/ one units w/ one units w/ one Type 11 EHU Type II EHU Type II EHU Type II EHU The proposed minor subdivision will result in impacts on the development potential of Lots 7 & 8. As illustrated above, through the reconfiguration of the common lot line, development potential from Lot 7 will be "transferred" to Lot 8. Currently, 13,013 sq. ft. of Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) is permitted on the combined area of the two lots. The applicant's minor subdivision proposal would decrease the amount of allowable GRFA to 12,673 sq. ft. The decrease of 340 sq. ft of GRFA is a result of increasing the total lot area of Lot 8, and the way in which GRFA is calculated. According to Section 18.13.080, Primary /Secondary Density Control, the following GRFA shall be permitted on each site in the Primary /Secondary Residential Zone District: 1. Twenty -five square feet of GRFA for each one hundred square feet of the first fifteen thousand square feet of site area; plus 2. Ten square feet of GRFA for each one hundred square feet of site area over fifteen thousand, not to exceed thirty thousand square feet of site area; plus 3. Five square feet of GRFA for each one hundred square feet of site area in excess of thirty thousand square feet. • In addition to the above, a credit of four hundred twenty five (425) square feet of GRFA shall be permitted for each allowable dwelling unit. The 340 square foot reduction of GRFA results when the 9,951 square feet of lot area is "transferred" to Lot 8, from Lot 7. The GRFA for that additional lot area is apportioned at five square feet of GRFA for each one hundred square feet of site area (5 %) rather than a part of that area apportioned at ten square feet (10 %) as it had been calculated on Lot 7. IV. MINOR SUBDIVISION CRITERIA One of the basic premises of subdivision regulations is that the minimum standards for the creation of a new lot must be met. Although this proposal is not truly creating two new lots, but instead, simply reconfiguring two existing lots, the minimum standards still must be met. As a result, this project will be reviewed under the minor subdivision criteria, pursuant to Chapter 17 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. The first set of review criteria to be considered by the Planning and Environmental Commission for a minor subdivision application are as follows: A. Lot Area - The Town of Vail Municipal Code defines a "Lot ", in part, as a parcel of land occupied or intended to be occupied by a use, building, or structure under the provisions of the Municipal Code and meeting the minimum requirements of the • i, Code. The minimum lot requirements for the applicant's property are defined in Section 18.13.050, Lot Area and Site Dimensions, (Primary/ Secondary • Residential). Section 18.13.050, defines the minimum lot area as 15,000 square feet of buildable area. As Lots 7 & 8 are currently platted, both lots meet the minimum lot area requirement of 15,000 square feet of buildable area. The minor subdivision, as proposed, would maintain the conformity with the minimum buildable lot area. B. Fron e - The Town of Vail Municipal Code requires that lots in the Primary /Secondary Residential Zone District have a minimum street frontage of 30'. . Currently, both Lots 7 & 8 have street frontages greater than 30'. This proposal does not affect the frontage for either lot and therefore, would not affect this requirement. C. Site Dimensions - The Town of Vail Municipal Code requires that each lot in the Primary /Secondary Residential Zone District be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area 80'x 80'. As platted, both lots meet the minimum site dimension requirement. The proposed minor subdivision would not affect the minimum size and shape requirements for these lots. The second set of criteria to be considered by the Planning and Environmental Commission with a minor subdivision request are as outlined in the Subdivision Regulations, and are as follows: "The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intended purpose of Chapter 17, the Zoning Ordinance and other • pertinent regulations that the PEC deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to the recommendations by public agencies, utility companies and other agencies consulted under Section 17.16.090. The PEC shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies related to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, effects on the aesthetics of the Town, environmental integrity and compatibility with surrounding uses." In accordance with Section 18.66.080 of the Town of Vail, notification of the public hearing on the proposed minor subdivision was published in the local newspaper of record and notices were sent to the adjacent property owners. n U The subdivision purpose statements are as follows: To inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which development proposals will be evaluated and to provide information as to the type and extent of improvements required. Staff Response: One of the underlying purposes of subdivision regulations, as well as any development control, is to establish basic ground rules to which the staff, the PEC, the applicant and the community can follow in the public review process. Although this request does not involve the creation of a new subdivision, it is the appropriate process to amend existing platted lots. 3 2. To provide for the subdivision of property in the future without conflict with development on adjacent properties. • Staff Response: The applicant's lots are bounded on the north, east and west by existing primary /secondary structures, and by U.S. Forest Service property on the south. Staff believes the applicant's request will not conflict with the development potential of adjacent properties, as the applicant has not requested to deviate from the development standards prescribed by the Town of Vail Municipal Code for the Primary /Secondary Residential Zone District. 3. To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the municipality and the value of buildings and improvements on the land. Staff Response: The minor subdivision proposed by the applicant will not have any negative impacts on the value of land throughout the Town of Vail. The applicant's property is zoned Primary /Secondary Residential. The zoning designation will not change with the minor subdivision. The lots are currently developed. Lot 7 is developed with a single - family house, while Lot 8 contains a primary /secondary development. The proposed lots are similar in size to the size of the other lots in the vicinity. 4. To insure that subdivision of property is in compliance with the Town Zoning Ordinance, to achieve a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives. • Staff Response: The proposed minor subdivision of Lots 7 and 8 is in compliance with the Town Zoning Ordinance. However, staff is concerned with the relationship of the minor subdivision to other land uses and the development objectives. Most development along West Forest Road is located close to the road, thereby preserving the mature trees along the upper portions of the hillside, and protecting the steep slopes. Staff feels strongly that a "no- build" area should be designated on both lots in order to continue to protect the slopes, mature vegetation and the character of the neighborhood. For Lot 7, the "no- build" area is approximately 65' from the front property line. For Lot 8, the "no- build" area is approximately 120' from the front property line. In order to maintain consistency with the other development in the area, staff believes it is necessary to reduce the impact of development further to the south, by maintaining a "no- build" area south of the existing structures. 5. To guide public and private policy and action in order to provide adequate and efficient transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreational and other public requirements and facilities and generally to provide that public facilities will have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed subdivision. Staff Response: The purpose of subdivision regulations is intended primarily to address impacts of large scale subdivisions of property, as opposed to this proposal for a minor subdivision. Staff does not believe that this proposal will have any negative effects on any of the above listed public facilities. There are no utility easements that will be affected by this minor subdivision. • rd 6. To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and to establish • reasonable and desirable construction, design standards and procedures. Staff Response: The proposed minor subdivision is in conformance with the minor subdivision platting requirements of the Municipal Code. 7. To prevent the pollution of air, streams, and ponds, to insure adequacy of drainage facilities, to safeguard the water table and encourage the wise use and management of natural resources throughout the municipality in order to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the community and the value of land. Staff Response: Staff believes the proposed minor subdivision will not have any negative impacts on the pollution of air, streams or ponds, and will not negatively impact the drainage or water table. However, staff believes that the proposed minor subdivision does not encourage the wise use and management of the natural resources. In order to protect the steep slopes and numerous large trees, staff believes that a "no- build" area is appropriate on these two lots. This proposed minor subdivision will add approximately 500 square feet of allowable GRFA to Lot 8. Although both lots have the ability to add several thousand square feet of GRFA, limiting the building area to the northern part of the lot will protect the natural resources of the property. Staff further believes that if the lots are further developed close to Forest Road, the integrity, stability and beauty of the community and the value of land will be maintained. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION • The Community Development Department staff recommends denial of the applicant's request to allow for the minor subdivision of Lots 7 & 8, Block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing. Staff believes the applicant has met the first set of review criteria to be considered by the Planning and Environmental Commission for a minor subdivision application request as the reconfigured lots will conform with the minimum lot area, street frontage and site dimension requirements. However, staff believes the minor subdivision request is not in conformance with the second set of review criteria. Specifically, staff believes criteria IV -4 and IV -7 have not been met. Staff believes that this minor subdivision is not consistent with the development objectives of the Town of Vail and does not preserve the natural resources of the community. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to grant an approval of this request, the Community Development Department would recommend that the approval carry with it a condition that a "no- build" area be established on each lot as shown on the attached Exhibit B. k, T H = 475.00' ' ' �Q T = 140.0 E) $, r A G3'v ^5 b3 " L = 106.61' CB = S 9627'12" E 52.5.00' CB = N 78'40 "12` E CH = 139.49" 14.13' CH = 106.39' s s 28.26' N 734657" E •��,`� 28 26' TIM CAR GARAGE ^I �, • b FOUND 5/8 " REBAR rSET 5 18" REBAR W/PLASAC SrNGCE L ' =r W/WASHER LS NO. 2 I � r[ r �I P PE AND KS NO. 26625 (TYP.) FA.uAAfX r NC£ L_r 666 696 Lo LOT 7 BLOCK 1. o 2J,218.8 SQUARE FEET 0.533 ACRES N LOT 8. BLOCK 1 a 5.3, 026.8 SQUARE FEET , 1.217 ACRES rri Z 41 -4. Ir O O IN N O LOT 9 N 8023• LOT 6 p Ik 48„ � 1L • r �l �P aP'° I L 0T LINE VA CA TED BY THIS PLAT I � 1 . V ` ti [ I ..r I FOUND REBAR W /ALUM. CAP L.S. NO. 11413 I u OF LOT 2. BLOCK 2, AND A FOUND 518" I ,' 2183 AT 77 IC NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 7, I } :RE FOOTAGE OF LOT 8. } a • ;4 1996 757928' 85V,5'01" I 78'00'45' + 10' EASEMENT N 90100100" W 66.39 / EBAR W /PLASAC P PE AND PLS NO. 26625 (TYP.) 0 LOT a. 8L (7i ARE FEET : 1.217 ACRES Z ° 40 o w C13 0 I� 'A V,L Y a LRE9DENCE I X666 Nor LOT 7 BLOCK 1. 2J,218.8 SQUARE FEET 0.533 ACRES N =AJILb#1 A ARE#, h a LOT 9 N 8023 i LNA LOT LINE BY ] TED ` .AT I CUND REBAR W /ALUM. CAP L.S. NO. 1141) OF LOT 2, BLOCK 2, AND A FOUND 5/8" 218J AT TILE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 7, I ?EAGE OF LOT B. 1 757928 - 8560 10' 4 EASEM N 90100100" W 66. 78'00'45" pwwir $ FOUND 518" REBAR W/WASHER LS NO. 2 LOT 6 '�r c ra n 1J� arcct T r sr rd = 475.00" ft T = 70.51' A b L = 140.00' 03G5'G3" L = 106.61' CR = S 8677'12" E = 52.5.00' C8 = N 78'40'12' E CH = 139.49' 14.1J' CH = 106. J9' = 28.26' N 7J 46 57° E r..• = 2a 26' 71517 CAR > ° 4° /,,p• lz GARAGE :,+ C'"T SIN-L £ / EBAR W /PLASAC P PE AND PLS NO. 26625 (TYP.) 0 LOT a. 8L (7i ARE FEET : 1.217 ACRES Z ° 40 o w C13 0 I� 'A V,L Y a LRE9DENCE I X666 Nor LOT 7 BLOCK 1. 2J,218.8 SQUARE FEET 0.533 ACRES N =AJILb#1 A ARE#, h a LOT 9 N 8023 i LNA LOT LINE BY ] TED ` .AT I CUND REBAR W /ALUM. CAP L.S. NO. 1141) OF LOT 2, BLOCK 2, AND A FOUND 5/8" 218J AT TILE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 7, I ?EAGE OF LOT B. 1 757928 - 8560 10' 4 EASEM N 90100100" W 66. 78'00'45" pwwir $ FOUND 518" REBAR W/WASHER LS NO. 2 LOT 6 '�r c ra n 1J� arcct T MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 16, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for a setback variance for a garage addition, located at 4532 Sreamside Circle East/ Lot 15, Bighorn 4th Addition. Applicant: Lillian and Bill Bresnahan Planner: Lauren Waterton I. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting a side setback variance of approximately 10', to allow for a 5' side setback, in order to construct an attached 458 sq. ft., two -car garage. This site is currently improved with a duplex structure without a garage. The existing structure was constructed in 1973 and the area was under Eagle County jurisdiction at that time. As constructed, the duplex encroaches 10' into the required 15' side setback and therefore, is a pre- existing nonconforming structure. • There is an existing unimproved driveway for the west half of the duplex, which approaches the house in approximately the same area where the garage is proposed. The site is also constrained by a large tree, located 6' to the east of the proposed addition. The existing lot line dividing the duplex is located 34' from the west property line and 19' from the setback line. The site is also nonconforming with respect to driveway paving. The driveway is currently unpaved and therefore must be paved if this addition is constructed. II. ZONING ANALYSIS Zoning: Two Family Residential Use: Duplex residence Lot Size: 15,067 sq. ft. Standard Allowed Existing Proposed Site Coverage: 3,013 sq. ft. (20 %) 2,080 sq. ft. (14 %) 2,586 sq. ft. (17 %) Landscape area: 9,040 sq. ft. (60 %) 11,600 sq. ft. (77 %) 11,381 sq. ft. (75 %) Setbacks: Front: 20' 30' 25' Sides: 15' 5' (west) & 47' (east) 5' (west) & n/c (east) Rear: 15' 59' n/c isParking: 4 spaces required 4 spaces (none enclosed) 6 spaces (2 enclosed) 1 I11. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS • Upon review of Section 18.62.060, Criteria and Findings, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested side setback variance. The recommendation for approval is based on the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Most duplexes in this area were constructed with garages. Staff believes that providing garages is a benefit to the neighborhood by removing cars and other items from public view. While the proposal is compatible with the neighborhood, the encroachment into the setback is an additional impact to the adjacent structure to the west. However, staff believes this can be mitigated with landscaping and fenestration additions to the project. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. Staff believes that the layout and orientation of the existing structure make • this site unique. The existing location of the building in the side setback and the location of the existing tree constitute a physical hardship and therefore, prevent the addition from being moved further to the east, out of the setback. The applicant has proposed a modest two -car garage of 458 sq. ft., which staff believes to be the minimum necessary for adequate access and use of the garage. The proposal is 6' from the existing tree and staff feels that in order to protect the tree, the garage should be located no closer than proposed. Staff believes the proposal is not a grant of special privilege due to the site constraints. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Staff believes that the requested variance will not negatively affect these issues. While the proposed addition is located close to the adjacent property, it is not proposed to encroach any further than the existing building. There will continue to be a separation of approximately 22' between the two buildings. Staff believes that this separation is adequate and will not compromise these issues. B. The Plannina and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: • 2 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in • the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of the applicant's side setback variance request subject to the following findings: • 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. • 2. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to this site that do not apply generally to other properties in the Two - Family Residential zone. 3. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of priviledges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. The recommendation for approval is also subject to the following conditions: 1. The driveway shall be paved. 2. In order to provide a buffer to the adjacent property and to mitigate the setback encroachment, trees shall be added along the west wall of the new addition. Specifically, one 8' -10' spruce tree and four aspen trees shall be added. The location shall be subject to approval by the Design Review Board. 3. Windows shall be added to the west elevation of the new garage subject to approval by the Design Review Board. 3 _1 PROPERTY LINE N 36'4300" E 1 f 15' SIDE SETBACK II I 4 S 36°4300" W 151 -W PROPERTY LINE if-il rn 1 m ` m 7a� 0° to 1' C r Z i p 2U FRONT SETBACK 173.20' All F J EXISTING PARKING EXISTING FIR i� �v EXISTING PAVEMENT / Q co I ''� `: BAST ELEVATION 1/8 -�a 0 • • • • u SIDING;- FASCIA AND TRIM TO MOCK EXISTING lenrlrw r+•+ • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 16, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision to create two primary /secondary residential lots and a request for a variance from the 30' minimum street frontage requirement, located at 2339 Chamonix Lane/ Tract A, Vail Heights, Filing 1 and an unplatted parcel in S1/2, SE 1/4, Sec. 11, T5S, R81W, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado. A more complete legal description is available at the Office of Community Development. Applicant: Robert Hunter, represented by Rick Rosen Planner: George Ruther i. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Robert Hunter, represented by Rick Rosen, is proposing a minor subdivision of an existing tract of land and an unplatted parcel, generally located north of Lots 4 & 5, Vail Heights, Filing No. 1. The applicant is proposing to create two new residential lots. Each of the newly created lots will be approximately 1/2 acre in size and are intended to facilitate the • future development of two duplex residences on the site. The applicant has submitted a final plat and a conceptual site plan illustrating the location of the proposed residences and access thereto (see attachments 1 &2). According to the plat and site plan, a portion of each of the lots is impacted by moderate debris flow /debris avalanche and medium severity rockfall hazards. To better insure that future development is not adversely impacted by the geologic hazards, the applicant is proposing to plat building envelopes on the final plat in response to recommendations made by a Geologic Engineer (see attachment 3) and has further indicated on the plat, via a plat note, that, "construction of any improvements on Lot 2 that will impede into the debris flow zone shall require written approval by the Town of Vail of a specific engineering and mitigation analysis for such improvements." The plat indicates the dedication of an access, drainage and utility easement. The easement is located on all of existing Tract A, and with the exception of a drainage easement, along the southerly thirty -feet (30') of proposed Lot 2. The easement is intended to provide adequate access to proposed Lot 1, located north of Lot 2, as Lot 1 has no direct street frontage on Chamonix Lane, and to provide a location for the installation of underground utlitities. In addition to the proposed minor subdivision request, the applicant is also requesting a variance from Section 18.13.050, Lot Area and Site Dimensions, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. According to Section 18.13.050, in part, each site in the Primary /Secondary Residential Zone District shall have a minimum street frontage of thirty -feet (30'). As proposed, Lot 1 does not comply with this requirement, and therefore, a variance is required. Il. BACKGROUND In May of 1991, the then owners of the property, submitted an application to the Town of Vail requesting a rezoning of the property. The owners were requesting a change in zoning from Primary /Secondary Residential to Low Density Multi - Family. Due to numerous complications with the review of the request, the Planning and Environmental Commission finally heard the applicant's request in early 1992. During these meetings, much of the discussion centered around the geologic hazards existing on the site and the impacts to development they created. This discussion was precipitated by a severe debris flow event which occurred on the property in the early 1980's. In response to the debris flow event, the Town of Vail, acting in an emergency situation, created a drainage channel across the property to direct flows and protect the neighborhood. The property has since been regraded, and the drainage channel removed. Hazard reports have been completed by both Art Mears and Nicholas Lampiris. Each geologist had concluded, based upon site specific investigations, that development could be accommodated on the site, with proper design and mitigation. Finally, on February 22, 1993, after several years of review and a settlement of a lawsuit brought against the Town by the applicant, the Planning and Environmental Commission recommended approval of the applicant's request for a rezoning, minor subdivision and wall height variance. The Commission's recommendation of approval was contingent upon approval of the rezoning request by the Vail Town Council. On January 18, 1994, the Vail Town Council approved a motion tabling the applicant's request to a future date. The applicant's request was tabled until the Town and applicant could resolve an issue relating to hazard mitigation clean -up should a debris flow occur. To date, a resolution to the hazard mitigation clean -up has not been reached and the property has been sold to a new owner. The hazard mitigation clean -up issue is no longer a point of contention, as the new owner is proposing a different development plan. III. ZONING ANALYSIS LOT 1 LOT 2 Proposed Proposed Total Lot Area: 26,661 sq. ft 22,144.1 sq. ft. Building Envelope: 6,256 sq. ft. 6,209 sq. ft. Total Allowable GRFA ": 5,766.1 sq. ft 5,314.4 sq. ft. Total Allowable Site Coverage: 20 % or 5,332 sq. ft. 20 % or 4,428.8 sq. ft. Street Frontage: 0 ft. 51 ft. Minimum Lot Size (15,000 sq. ft. of Buildable Area): 26,661 sq. ft. 22,144.1 sq. ft. f : \everyone\pec\rnemos\hunter.d16 2 AM • • • • Does the lot meet the size /shape requirement of 80' x 80'? yes yes Includes two 425 sq. ft. credits (850 sq. ft.) of GRFA for allowable dwelling units IV. MINOR SUBDIVISION CRITERIA One of the basic premises of subdivision regulations is that the minimum standards for the creation of a new lot must be met. This project will be reviewed under the Minor Subdivision Criteria, pursuant to Chapter 17, Subdivision Regulations, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. The first set of review criteria to be considered by the Planning and Environmental Commission for a Minor Subdivision Application are as follows: A. Lot Area - The Town of Vail Municipal Code indicates that the minimum lot or site area for a lot located within the Primary /Secondary Residential Zone District, shall be 15,000 sq. ft. (0.344 acre) of buildable area. The Municipal Code defines "buildable area" as, "any site, lot, parcel or any portion thereof, which does not contain designated floodplain, red hazard avalanche, or areas in excess of 40% slope." • As proposed, the buildable areas of Lots 1 and 2 are 26,661 sq. ft. (0.612 acre) and 22,144 sq. ft. (0.508 acre), respectively. This is well above the minimum 15,000 square feet required by the Municipal Code. B. Frontage - The Vail Municipal Code requires that lots in the Primary /Secondary Residential Zone District have a minimum street frontage of thirty -feet (30'). Currently, Tract A has a street frontage in excess of thirty -feet (30'). The proposed plat indicates that Lot 2 will have a street frontage of fifty -one feet (51'), while Lot 1 will have no street frontage. The applicant has requested a variance from the street frontage requirement for Lot 1 in conjunction with the minor subdivision request. C. Site Dimensions - The Vail Municipal Code requires that each lot be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area, 80 feet on each side, within its boundaries. The proposed minor subdivision would create two lots of the size and shape necessary to enclose a square area, 80' on each side, within its new boundaries. The second set of criteria to be considered with a minor subdivision request are as outlined.in the subdivision regulations, and are as follows: "The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intended purpose of Chapter 17, the Zoning Ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the PEC deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to • the recommendations by public agencies, utility companies and other agencies consulted f: \everyone\pec \memos\hunter.dl6 3 under Section 17.16.090. The PEC shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies related to subdivision control, densities • proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, effects on the aesthetics of the Town, environmental integrity and compatibility with surrounding uses." The subdivision purpose statements are as follows: To inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which development and proposals will be evaluated and to provide information as to the type and extent of improvements required. Staff Response: One of the underlying purposes of subdivision regulations, as well as any development control, is to establish basic ground rules which the staff, the PEC, the applicant and the community can follow in the public review process. The review of this request will follow the regulations prescribed for minor subdivisions in the Municipal Code. 2. To provide for the subdivision of property in the future without conflict with development on adjacent properties. Staff Response: The applicant's property is bound on the north by unplatted U.S. Forest Service property and on the south, east and west by multi- family development. The existing multi - family development was approved by Eagle County prior to the area being annexed into the Town of Vail. Staff believes that the applicant's proposal to subdivide the property, with the intent of future construction of two duplex residences, will not conflict with the existing development on adjacent properties. The property is zoned Primary /Secondary . Residential and the applicant's proposal is in compliance with the existing zoning. 3. To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the municipality and the value of buildings and improvements on the land. Staff Response: Staff does not believe that the applicant's request will negatively impact the value of land in the Town of Vail generally, or in the immediate area specifically. The applicant's plans are in compliance with existing zoning and the adopted Town of Vail Land Use Plan. 4. To insure that subdivision of property is in compliance with the Town Zoning Ordinance, to achieve a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives. Staff Response: Again, the applicant's proposal is in compliance with existing zoning. The building envelopes proposed by the applicant meet, and in some areas, exceed the setbacks prescribed in the Primary /Secondary Residential Zone District. Staff does not believe that the minor subdivision will negatively impact the desired harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives. 5. To guide public and private policy and action in order to provide adequate and efficient transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreational and other public requirements and facilities and generally to provide that public facilities will have sufficient • capacity to serve the proposed subdivision. fAeveryone\pec\memos\hunter.d16 4 Staff Response: Staff does not believe the requested minor subdivision will have • any adverse impacts on the above - described criteria. 6. To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and to establish reasonable and desirable construction, design standards and procedures. Staff Response: As required, the applicant has submitted a preliminary final plat prepared by a land surveyor licensed to pratice in Colorado. The applicant has further proposed to plat building envelopes on the final plat to insure that future development does not conflict with the existing geologic hazards. A plat note has also been included on the plat to document the need for site specific analysis of the geologic hazards to protect future improvements and occupants of the residences. Staff believes the applicant has addressed the above - described criteria. However, staff is concerned with the encroachment of the building envelope on Lot 2 into the debris flow /debris avalanche zone. Staff would like to discuss this issue with the applicant and Planning and Environmental Commission. 7. To prevent the pollution of air, streams, and ponds, to insure adequacy of drainage facilities, to safeguard the water table and encourage the wise use and management of natural resources throughout the municipality in order to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the community and the value of land. Staff Response: According to a drainage report submitted previously, development on the site will slightly increase the amount of surface run -off. Before development, the total site run -off, excluding U.S. Forest Service land and • Lot 15 run -off, for the 10 -year and 100 -year storm is 0.9 and 1.6 cubic feet /second (CFS), respectively. After development, the on -site run -off could increase to 1.2 and 2.0 CFS for the 10 -year and 100 -year storms. Based upon these conclusions, staff does not believe the proposed minor subdivision will have any negative impacts on the above - described criteria. 0 V. VARIANCE CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.62.060, Criteria and Findings, of theTown of Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested minimum street frontage variance. The recommendation for approval is based on the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Staff believes the requested minimum street frontage variance to allow for the creation of the proposed Lot 1, Tall Pines Subdivision, will have minimal, if any, negative impacts on other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Staff believes the unique configuration of the existing property boundaries results in a physical hardship being imposed on the applicant and that the strict enforcement of the minimum street frontage regulation will result in a practical difficulty for the applicant. f Aeveryone\pec\memos\hu nter.d 16 5 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve • compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The staff believes the applicant is requesting the minimum amount of relief from the minimum street frontage regulation necessary to achieve the desired goal of subdividing the property. Staff believes the applicant has adequately met the intent of the mimimum thirty -foot (30') street frontage requirement through the dedication of the access easement proposed on the final plat. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traff ic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The staff believes the above - described criteria is not relevant to this variance request. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public • health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in.the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the minor subdivision of Tract A and an unplatted parcel of property generally located north of Lots 4 and 5, Vail Heights, Filing No. 1, and the request for a variance from the thirty -foot (30') minimum street frontage prescribed in Section 18.13.050, of the Municipal Code. Staff believes the applicant has met the necessary findings as outlined in Sections IV & V of this memorandum. • fAeveryone\pec\memoslhunter.d16 6 Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to grant an approval of the • requested minor subdivision and minimum street frontage variance, staff would recommend that the Commision make the findings necessary, as stated in Sections IV & V of this memorandum, and that the approval carry with it the following conditions: 1. That the Town of Vail Public Works Department review and approve the proposed conceptual driveway and grading plan submitted by the applicant. 2. That the applicant add the following note to the final plat: • • "Future development on the two lots shall be restricted to the area within the platted building envelopes. This restriction. shall include all decks, roof eavelines, etc. The only development permitted outside the platted building envelopes shall be landscaping, at -grade patios, driveways, and retaining walls associated with driveway construction." 3. That the applicant make the following changes on the final plat prior to recordation: Remove the 'TRACT A" label. Change GRFA numbers to 5,766.1 sq. ft. for Lot 1 and to 5,314.4 sq. ft. for Lot 2. Change BLM to U.S. Forest Service, as it relates to property ownership. tAeveryone\pec\memos\hunter.d16 7 +L , r' •iY :' B L M ' ;; • < "+' UNPLAr7ED I LOT 6 Nr c6nrn n s. p d ac sal. a src lASV n. I • N 1.';7 • N8 �. `Y . ' 4 A Awa,Dlaurt La new m fNWLopc' t t4 Loll 1. /Am$ APPRUrW.a eaunuv a Y[M/e/ gl(AIII � 1 /IArAwI COT 15 S N 81 aJI C .74 ' .. W W 4 4J LOr 2. {' 12, 1111 IWKW FELT ACCESS t U7KIrr EASCMENI f' 1 - - - JD O7' IJZ7J' LOT 14 X7000 W !6780' (BASS Cr BEARINGS) F[LM 3.'tl" Ar8..9 GAP L S HJ 331 / cl !/6 MTBAA �A[LM I cAP [s N6 sa1 LOT 4 for 5 VAX OAS SCHONE FUNG NO J 'YQ ms 8AVS Oc BCARMGS' S 8620'00'f ALCWG THE NORTNERL r LOl IR/CS CY LOTS 4 AAV 5 CY YAK DAS SCHt T FKING NO 1. BETMEEN FIX/NO MOVCMKN/S AS K C'AICO 04 I Or SWWr. DECCMBCR 1996. 14Ai1 Ss., Fj;`_:') .• '• OCNOIES SEI 5/6' REBAR W/P[AS CAP PC & P[S 16676 �...�' S � Jldi OENOAS S/RC[/ADQYL SS FOR zavw PORPOSE.i EACH LOT IS imm PPoMARr- SEC'CIVDARY. f cays R[ACROV Lr ANY MIPRO+ENEN75 Ov LOT 7 THAT MILL AwcDE WTO THE Lr ti - DfMS FLOW ZOW SHALL RCOLW MWTIEN APPROVAL Br INE TOM OF }� %,-: YAK Oc A SITE WCOC LN0WWlWW0 AND .[67/GA ROW ANAL YDS MR L• 'R 2 FINAL PL T TALL PINES SUBDIVISION TRACT A, VAIL HEIGHTS FILING NO. 1, AND A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN Si/? OF TH£ SE(/4 OF S£CAON 11, T 5 S, R 81 W., OF THE 6TH P. M. TOWN OF VAIL, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO LOT 5 U oI [wt vArArt6 kz kz h_ b t AceESS cRA/NAex. ANO UIKI /1 CASCMCWI TRACT A !� M.l>s TAG d M Clw/ W�9YCR PA6 K I R! ]641r CHAMONX LANE (50) GRAPHIC SCALE 101 I - 76.6660 SQUARE FEE! 6.156 soww F007 BUKDNC ENKLCWC A7" 56tA 4aC FOOT &WA ALL ONED LOT I - ?2.'144./ SOUARE FEET 6,1LV MOT 8MOW ENM!LO'E SJIJ_SOMW MOT GRFA AUOAW (4148 NOT N LICBATS -FLOW) S M =1 _—*z W7=7 =. tml rr wti �w.4aw�[�.M,/ Ora.w �.w..IA yYry rr�'.�wM •'% iyrr weu Ar +t w. r.rwµr..WV.r1.r r[ .uK ✓ .u.wa� ; > v -ii��r r Av w r Yw.v r� 2 L• 'R 2 FINAL PL T TALL PINES SUBDIVISION TRACT A, VAIL HEIGHTS FILING NO. 1, AND A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN Si/? OF TH£ SE(/4 OF S£CAON 11, T 5 S, R 81 W., OF THE 6TH P. M. TOWN OF VAIL, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO LOT 5 U oI [wt vArArt6 kz kz h_ b t AceESS cRA/NAex. ANO UIKI /1 CASCMCWI TRACT A !� M.l>s TAG d M Clw/ W�9YCR PA6 K I R! ]641r CHAMONX LANE (50) GRAPHIC SCALE 101 I - 76.6660 SQUARE FEE! 6.156 soww F007 BUKDNC ENKLCWC A7" 56tA 4aC FOOT &WA ALL ONED LOT I - ?2.'144./ SOUARE FEET 6,1LV MOT 8MOW ENM!LO'E SJIJ_SOMW MOT GRFA AUOAW (4148 NOT N LICBATS -FLOW) S M =1 _—*z W7=7 =. tml rr wti �w.4aw�[�.M,/ Ora.w �.w..IA yYry rr�'.�wM •'% iyrr weu Ar +t w. r.rwµr..WV.r1.r r[ .uK ✓ .u.wa� ; > v -ii��r r Av w r Yw.v r� 2 !� M.l>s TAG d M Clw/ W�9YCR PA6 K I R! ]641r CHAMONX LANE (50) GRAPHIC SCALE 101 I - 76.6660 SQUARE FEE! 6.156 soww F007 BUKDNC ENKLCWC A7" 56tA 4aC FOOT &WA ALL ONED LOT I - ?2.'144./ SOUARE FEET 6,1LV MOT 8MOW ENM!LO'E SJIJ_SOMW MOT GRFA AUOAW (4148 NOT N LICBATS -FLOW) S M =1 _—*z W7=7 =. tml rr wti �w.4aw�[�.M,/ Ora.w �.w..IA yYry rr�'.�wM •'% iyrr weu Ar +t w. r.rwµr..WV.r1.r r[ .uK ✓ .u.wa� ; > v -ii��r r Av w r Yw.v r� 2 1.hn 86 20 OO�J � / I I an. I 91.05' G f I A M p N I X r n rt I kv � 4 F fd 1 �b a b N DRIVEWAY GRADING PLAN - EXAMPLE ONLY) r - 2off v wn — 1t 00 G _ _. I2.2 t- Ziau++�wu�a(;�( LOTA - _ _ 26.679 SQUARE FEET 6.256 SF BLA ENV. 5768 SF GRFA ALLOWED wY, J ; LOT B - Al iz-M SQUARE FEET t 6.209 SF BL.G ENV. (4,248 NOT IN 1 DEBRIS-FLOW) _ 5,313 SFCRFA ALLOWED 1.hn 86 20 OO�J � / I I an. I 91.05' G f I A M p N I X r n rt I kv � 4 F fd 1 �b a b N DRIVEWAY GRADING PLAN - EXAMPLE ONLY) r - 2off v wn — 1t 00 G _ _. I2.2 12 -03 -1996 08:56PM FROM ART MEARS December 3. 1996 TO 19?04768637 P.01 ARTHUR I. MEARS, P.E., INC. Natural Hazards Consultants 555 County Road 16 Gunnison, Colorado 81230 TelfFax:970- 641.3236 • anmtimarm nl ii_co Mr. Greg Amsden ADF Real Estate The Wren, Suite #112 540 South Frontage Road East Vail, CO 81657 Via Fax (970-47 6-8637) Dear Mr. Amsden: As requested by you and Rick Rosen, i have reviewed a site plan and a grading plan of the proposed Dual Pines Subdivision in Vail. Both site and grading plans were dated '111/15/96.' Any changes to these plans could invalidate the preliminary conclusions of this letter. In reaching these Conclusions I relied upon previous experience in the Vail area, including direct observations of the 1984 debris flow that overran the eastem portion of the proposed subdivision. I also reviewed an April, 1992 study of the'Schmetzko Property" i completed for Rick Rosen. DEBRIS FLOWS Building envelope *A," as shown on• your plans, ties completely west of the debris flow area, consequently should require no special debris -flow mitigation. The eastern 1/3 of Building • errmlepe'B,' is located within the debris now area and would require mitigation N built upon; the western 213 of envelope *W is outside the debris flow area and requires no mitigation. ROCKFALL According to your plans, both building envelope 9A' and '8' are partially exposed to `medium severity' rockfall areas as designated in a 1984 study commissioned by the Town of Vail. However, According to my study of April, 1992, which modeled rockfall potential in greater detail than the 1984 Vail study, rockfall will not reach building envelope 'B.' K may, however, reach envelope *A* during extreme conditions. Because envelope 'A" is at the extreme lower lirnit of rockfall potential, energises of rolling rocks would be small thus mitigation to protect any building would be minor. Rockfall mitigation Could probably be achieved with modification of the lower portions of building wails, small berm construction uphill of the building, or rockfall fences. As I noted above, a site inspection is required to refine these preliminary conclusions and to suggest any mitigation in greater detail. Building envelopes should be marked on the ground study� uw o t upon such a Please contact me if you would like to proceed with this additional work. Sincerely, Ct V ,4,M 4. ('14X a va Arthur 1. Mears, P.E. Avalanche - Control engineer Alract Meeting • AvaiaRC1KS • Avahmhe CdOrttr Nimcring is TOTAL P.01 • TO: FROM: DATE: MEMORANDUM Planning and Environmental Commission Department of Community Development August 14, 1995 SUBJECT: A request to review the proposed East Vail Water Tank located S.E. of 5004 Snowshoe Lane, more specifically located in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 18, Township 5 South, Range 79 of the 6th Principal Meridian. Applicant: Planner: I. PURPOSE Eagle River Water and Sanitation District Russ Forrest The Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (the District) is requesting that the Town of Vail review their proposed plans to create a new 1 million gallon water tank directly south of the existing water tank in East Vail (See Attachment A). The Town of Vail Fire Department and the District have identified a significant need for additional storage in the East Vail neighborhood to adequately fight fires and to simply provide adequate pressure for day to day useage. The property that the new tank would be located on is owned by the U.S. Forest Service and is located outside of the Town of Vail municipal boundary. This property is in the Town of Vail /USFS land exchange and is expected to come into Town of Vail ownership in the Spring of 1997. The District wants to ensure that this tank will conform to Town standards before compensating the Town for the cost of the land. Staff is proposing that this action be reviewed utilizing the criteria for a conditional use permit for the General Use District. 11. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed action involves the construction of a new 1 million gallon water storage tank located approximately 172 feet uphill from the existing tank. This tank would be 88 feet in diameter and 24 feet high. The action would also involve associated burried pipe and the permanent relocation of a 360 foot long segment of an unnamed drainage that flows from the steep slopes to the south and through the proposed tank site. The project also involves the realignment of a dirt road that serves the existing tank and a cellular communication facility. Significant regrading would also occur to bury the new tank. III. REVIEW CRITERIA: Staff recomends using the review criteria for a conditional use permit in the General Use District. The conditional use criteria are listed below: A. The relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. 0 The purpose section of the Conditional Use section of the zoning code, Section 18.60.010, states that: "Because of their unusual or special characteristics, conditional uses require review and evaluation so that they may be located properly with respect to the purposes of this title and with respect to their effects on surrounding properties." The purpose section of the General Use District of the zoning code, Section 18.36.010, states that: "The General Use District is intended to provide sites for public and quasi — public uses and is intended to ensure that pubic buildings and grounds and certain types of quasi—public uses permitted in the District are appropriately located and designed to meet the needs of residents and visitors to Vail, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and, in the case of buildings and other structures, to ensure adequate light, air open spaces and other amenities appropriate with the permitted types of uses." Staff believes that the development of a 1 million gallon water tank is consistent with the goals of these purpose sections of the zoning code. The tank is necessary to meet the water needs of residents and visitors to Vail. B. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population transportation facilities. utilities. schools. parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities An environmental assessment was prepared for this proposed action (See Attachment B). No long -term negative impacts are anticipated relating to the above stated areas. There may be a short -term dust impact to air quality as the result of the construction of the tank. Overall, there will be a positive public benefit in providing a more reliable water service to East Vail. C. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion. automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traff ic flow and control. access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking area. The proposed project does involve realignment of an access road. However, this will not affect transportation patterns in East Vail. It has been recommended that access to the site be blocked for private use to prevent vandalism and nightime disturbances at the tank site. D. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The proposed use is an underground water storage tank and it should have little or no effect of adjacent properties. However the existing tank is above ground . and visible from most areas of East Vail. E. Other factors recommended for discussion with the PEC: 0 Removal of the old storage tank: The District is requesting that the old 500,000 gallon tank be left in place. Once the new tank is constructed, the District would like to determine the structural integrity of the old tank to determine if the tank should remain in use along with the new tank. The old tank does stand out in East Vail and is exposed to potential damage in the event of a an avalanche on the site. Hazards: The site is in a designated High Severity Avalanche Hazard area. The new water tank has been designed to withstand maximum anticipated loading conditions associated with a 100 -year avalanche event. The Environmental Assessment states on page 21 that the project would not change the hazard down slope. This indicates that if the old tank were left in place it would still be exposed to high severity avalanche hazards. Landscaping: The proposed action would impact vegetation on 0.25 acres of land with the extensive regrading that would be required. The Environmental Assessment calls for reseeding with a natural seed mix. Staff would also recommend the planting of 10 -15 aspens down slope of the tank. 0 Hydrology: The stream channel on the site, which has a length of 360 feet, will be replaced with a new channel 420 feet in length. Wetland species will be planted in the new channel. The new channel will be designed to better handle high water levels. The PEC should be aware that the adjacent property owners use water running off the site for water features. The Town Engineer is still reviewing the hydrology to ensure that the proposed construction will not adversely affect the flooding hazard on or off the site. Wetland Impacts: Approximately 0.05 acres of wetlands would be disturbed on this site along the drainage that will be relocated. A 1:1 replacement (at least) will occur when the new drainage corridor is put in place. There may be the opportunity to improve the quality of the wetlands since the current value of the existing wetlands is low as defined by the Army Corps of Engineers. Development Standards: Development would be contained to a one million gallon water tank on the site. However the following standards are appropriate to discuss: 0 Tank Color: Obtain Design Review Board's input on the color of the tank. Road: The road as proposed would be dirt, which technically would require a paving variance. Since the property is not located within the Town's municipal boundary, and given the natural characteristics of the immediate area, staff feels that a gravel road on the site is appropriate. IV. FINDINGS: The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit: That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. V. CONCLUSION: The primary issue with this project is whether the existing tank should be allowed to remain. Staff would recommend that the PEC support construction of the proposed tank with the following conditions: A) That the old tank be removed, unless a compelling health safety justification can be provided to the PEC that 1.5 million gallons of storage is needed (versus 1 million) and that the high avalanche hazard could be mitigated for the existing tank. B) That a more specific revegetation plan be prepared that identifies the exact seed mix that will be used and the planting of Aspens downhill from the tank. C) That no lighting will occur on the site. D) That the access road be realigned on the property to be obtained through the land exchange. The removal of the old tank may facilitate the ability to keep the road entirely on the exchange property. Attachment A: Proposed site plan Attachment B: Environmental Assessment f:\everyone\russ\memo\tank.dl6 0 ii • • f ATTACHMENT A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Vail Meadows Water Storage Tank Proposed by: The Eagle River Water and Sanitation District December 5, 1996 Prepared under the Direction of the Holy Cross Ranger District White River National Forest Minturn, Colorado HYDROSPHERE Resource C o n s u l t a n t s 1002 Walnut • Suite 200 • Boulder, CO 80302 (303) 443.7839 • .TeleFax (303) 442.0616 Table of Contents 9 I. PREFACE ................................................................... ..............................1 II. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION .. ..............................2 III. ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION ....................3 A. Introduction ......................... ............................... ......................... Error! Bookmark not defined. B. Alternative A: No Action ........................................................................... ..............................3 C. Alternative B: Proposed Action - Vail Meadow Site ............................... ..............................3 D. Alternative C: Vail Meadow Site - Lower Tank Position ....................... ..............................4 E. Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Consideration ............................. ..............................4 1. Upper Tank Positions at Vail Meadows Site ............................................. ..............................4 2. On-Site Replacement of Existing Tank ..................................................... ..............................4 3. Site Locations Within the Town of Vail .................................................... ..............................5 4. Other Locations on National Forest System Lands ................................... ..............................5 IV. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .................................... ..............................6 A. Physiography and Geology ......................................................................... ..............................6 B. Natural Hazards .......................................................................................... ..............................7 C. Soils ................. ............................... .......................... ........................... ..............................9 D. Groundwater ............................................................................................... ..............................9 E. Hydrology ................................................................................................... .............................10 F. Water Quality ............................................................................................. .............................11 G. Vegetation ......................................... ............................... ...................... .............................13 H. Wetlands, Riparian Areas and Floodplains ............................................. .............................14 I. Wildlife ......................................................................................................... .............................15 J. Threatened and Endangered Species ........................................................ .............................17 KAir Quality .................................................................................................. .............................18 • • L. Visual Resources ......................................................................................... .............................19 M. Cultural Resources .................................................................................... .............................19 V. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES .................... .............................22 A. Physiography and Geology ........................................................................ .............................22 1. Alternative A: No Action ........................................................................ .............................22 2. Alternative B: Proposed Action - Vail Meadows Site ............................. .............................22 3. Alternative C: Vail Meadows Site - Lower Tank Position ...................... .............................22 4. Cumulative Effects ................................................................................... .............................23 B. Natural Hazards ......................................................................................... .............................23 1. Alternative A: No Action ........................................................................ .............................23 2. Alternative B: Proposed Action - Vail Meadows Site ............................. .............................23 3. Alternative C: Vail Meadows Site - Lower Tank Position ...................... .............................23 4. Cumulative Effects ................. C. Soils ............................................................................................................. .............................24 1. Alternative A: No Action ........................................................................ .............................24 2. Alternative B: Proposed Action - Vail Meadows Site ............................. .............................24 3. Alternative C: Vail Meadows Site - Lower Tank Position ...................... .............................24 4. Cumulative Effects ................................................................................... .............................24 D. Groundwater .............................................................................................. .............................24 1. Alternative A: No Action ........................................................................ .............................24 2. Alternative B: Proposed Action - Vail Meadows Site ............................. .............................24 3. Alternative C: Vail Meadows Site -. Lower Tank Position ...................... .............................25 4. Cumulative Effects ...............................:................................................... :............................25 E. Hydrology ................................................................................................... .............................25 1. Alternative A: No Action ........................................................................ .............................25 2. Alternative B: Proposed Action - Vail Meadows Site ............................. .............................25 3. Alternative C: Vail Meadows Site - Lower Tank Position ...................... .............................26 4. Cumulative Effects ................................................................................... .............................26 F. Water Quality ............................................................................................. .............................26 1. Alternative A: No Action ........................................................................ .............................26 2. Alternative B: Proposed Action - Vail Meadows Site ............................. .............................26 3. Alternative C: Vail Meadows Site - Lower Tank Position ...................... .............................27 4. Cumulative Effects ................................................................................... .............................27 G. Vegetation ................................................................................................... .............................27 1. Alternative A: No Action ........................................................................ .............................27 2. Alternative B: Proposed Action - Vail Meadows Site........... ................... .............................27 3. Alternative C: Vail Meadows Site - Lower Tank Position ...................... .............................27 4. Cumulative Effects ...:............................................................................... .............................27 H. Wetlands, Riparian Areas and Floodplains ............................................. .............................28 1. Alternative A: No Action ........................................................................ .............................28 2. Alternative B: Proposed Action - Vail Meadows Site ............................. .............................28 .3. Alternative C: Vail Meadows Site - Lower Tank Position ...................... .............................28 4. Cumulative Effects ................................................................................... .............................28 0 I. Wildlife ......................................................................................................... .............................29 1. Alternative A: No Action ........................................................................ .............................29 2. Alternative B: Proposed Action - Vail Meadows Site ............................. .............................29 3. Alternative C: Vail Meadows Site - Lower Tank Position ...................... .............................29 4. Cumulative Effects ................................................................................... .............................29 J. Threatened and Endangered Species ........................................................ .............................29 1. Alternative A: No Action ........................................................................ .............................29 2. Alternative B: Proposed Action - Vail Meadows Site ............................. .............................29 3. Alternative C: Vail Meadows Site - Lower Tank Position ...................... .............................30 4. Cumulative Effects ................................................................................... .............................30 K. Air Quality .................................................................................................. .............................30 1. Alternative A: No Action ........................................................................ .....:.......................30 2. Alternative B: Proposed Action - Vail Meadows Site ............................. .............................30 3. Alternative C: Vail Meadows Site - Lower Tank Position ...................... .............................30 4. Cumulative Effects ................................................................................... .............................31 L. Visual Resources ......................................................................................... .............................31 1. Alternative A: No Action ........................................................................ .............................31 2. Alternative B: Proposed Action - Vail Meadows Site ............................. .............................31 3. Alternative C: Vail Meadows Site - Lower Tank Position ...:.................. .............................31 4. Cumulative Effects .....................................................:............................. .............................31 M. Cultural Resources .................................................................................... .............................31 1. Alternative A: No Action ........................................................................ .............................31 2. Alternative B: Proposed Action - Vail Meadows Site ............................. .............................32 3. Alternative C: Vail Meadows Site - Lower Tank Position ...................... .............................32 4. Cumulative Effects ................................................................................... .............................32 N. Summary of Environmental Impacts that Cannot be Avoided .............. .............................32 O. Specific Mitigation Measures .................................................................... .:...........................33 VI. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ............... .............................34 VII. LIST OF PREPARERS ........................................... .............................34 VIII. REFERENCES ....................................................... .............................35 • 0 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT VAIL MEADOWS WATER STORAGE TANK Eagle River Water & Sanitation District I. PREFACE An environmental assessment is not a decision document. It is a document disclosing the environmental consequences of implementation of the Proposed Action. It is an important document for Federal, state and local governments to use in arriving at their individual decisions regarding the proposed action and alternatives to it. The environmental consequences on lands, activities, and resources administered by the other Federal, state, and local jurisdictions resulting from the Proposed Action have been disclosed in this Environmental Assessment (EA). Through consultation and cooperation, other Federal, state and local jurisdictions have assisted in the disclosure of environmental consequences and development of alternatives to the proposed action. The Forest Service decision will relate only to lands administered by the Forest Service and will be documented in a Decision Notice. Decisions by other jurisdictions to issue or not issue approvals related to this proposal can be made by them based on the disclosure of impacts available in this document. Listed below are cooperating agencies in the preparation of this document and, to our knowledge, the approvals needed by the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (the District) which is the project proponent. U.S. Forest Service, White River National Forest - The proposed project would be located on National Forest System Land and would require a Special Use Permit. Town of Vail - The Town has jurisdiction over all construction activities within the Vail boundaries and will require a building permit for construction of appurtenant facilities. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Under the Clean Water Act (PL 92 -500 as amended) the applicant must comply with the requirements of Section 404 prior to the discharge of any dredged or fill_ material into waters of the United States. Eagle County - Eagle County Land Use Regulations require a Special Use Permit, a permit under applicable sections of the regulations concerning Activities of State Interest (1041 Permit), and a building permit. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Page 2 Vail Meadows Water Storaize Tank II. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION The proposed project involves the construction of the Vail Meadows Water Storage Tank. This new tank will provide 1 million gallons (mg) of treated (potable) water storage and will be located on National Forest System land within the White River National Forest approximately 172 feet south and uphill from an existing 500,000 gallon tank located in east Vail. Studies conducted by the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District have determined that 1 mg of additional treated water storage is needed to meet surrounding domestic water needs during peak demand periods while maintaining adequate equalization and emergency storage levels. The specific emergency storage volumes are to provide needed fire flows and for potential water line leaks, pump failures, and power outages. (Merrick, 1994). The availability of water to meet current peak hour demands and fire flows will be significantly improved by the addition of the new 1.0 mg tank, which will provide up to 1.5 mg in total storage volume with the existing Vail meadows tank. After completion of the proposed project, the existing Vail Meadows Storage Tank (500,000 gallons) will be taken off -line for an engineering inspection to develop rehabilitation alternatives and costs. • • DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Page 3 Vail Meadows Water Storage Tank Ill. ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION This section of the EA presents the alternatives evaluated as a part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance process, including alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed analysis. Alternatives were defined based on the criteria of meeting the purpose and need for the proposed project. The alternatives considered in this EA are those that are most feasible in terms of technical and engineering aspects, and which minimize environmental impacts. Alternative locations for a new tank are limited by the elevation at which the storage tank would have to be built. In order to meet minimum pressure requirements in the water distribution system for fire flows, a new tank must have a minimum base elevation of 8,767 feet MSL. In order not to exceed existing maximum pressures within the distribution system, the high water elevation of the new tank cannot exceed 8,790 feet MSL (RBD, Inc., 1991). Considering the minimum required base elevation, topographic maps were use to identify potential alternative sites for construction of the storage tank. The alternatives identified were then evaluated for potential fatal flaws and several options were eliminated from detailed consideration in this EA due to engineering and/or environmental problems. The alternatives considered are described below. A. Alternative A: No Action Under the No Action Alternative, the Forest Service would deny the Special Use Permit Application for the Vail Meadows Water Storage Tank as submitted by the District. B. Alternative B: Proposed Action - Vail Meadow Site The proposed project involves the construction of a new 1 mg storage tank south and uphill from the existing Vail Meadows Storage Tank. The facility would consist of a post tensioned concrete tank 88 feet in diameter and 24 feet high, and associated piping and pumping facilities. The tank would be entirely buried such that the top of the tank would be covered with about 18 inches of soil and the uphill side of the tank would be about 18 inches below the elevation of the existing natural ground level. The location of the new, tank would be within National Forest System boundaries on a parcel of land that could be conveyed to the Town of Vail in conjunction with a proposed land exchange. The location and site plan for the proposed project are shown on Sheet 1 in Appendix A. The proposed project involves positioning the new storage tank approximately 172 feet uphill from the existing tank. Construction of the new tank at this location would require permanent relocation of a 360 feet long segment of the unnamed intermittent drainage that flows from the steep slopes to the south and through the proposed tank site. The project also includes realignment of the road and relocation of underground utilities (electric and communication) that currently serve a cellular communication facility DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Page 4 Vail Meadows Water Storage Tank located to the south of the site. As proposed, the buried tank would be located within an avalanche runout and has been designed to withstand the snow loading from a potential 100 -year avalanche event. After construction of the new 1 mg storage tank, the existing 500,000 gallon tank may . eventually be removed depending upon its condition and future maintenance requirements. Because of the possibility of future removal of the existing tank, the plans for the new tank include design features and landscaping to restore the natural appearance of the site and mitigate visual impacts. C. Alternative C: Vail Meadow Site - Lower Tank Position Under this alternative the new storage tank would be positioned approximately 75 feet south of the existing tank. The tank would be located on National Forest System land and some of the earth work and grading for its construction would be on land owned by the Town of Vail. A large retaining wall on the downhill side of the tank would be required to support the tank foundation. Construction of the storage tank at this site would require temporary relocation of the drainage channel during the construction process. Following construction the drainage would be returned to its approximate current location. The cellular communication facility access road would be realigned around the east side of the new tank. Slope conditions would require the entire north side of the storage tank to be above grade. 0 D. Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Consideration 1. Upper Tank Positions at Vail Meadows Site There are four possible locations which could accommodate a new storage tank at the Vail Meadows site. These locations are shown in Appendix B, along with a decision matrix used to evaluate tank positioning options. The two higher locations at the Vail Meadows site were considered but found not to be feasible due to high avalanche hazard exposure, safety, and engineering considerations. Both of these sites are within the direct impact zone of the Vail Meadows avalanche. While the tank could probably be designed to withstand the direct impact of a 100 -year avalanche, the cost of such design features would be substantial. In addition, because of the higher elevations of these sites, substantial modifications to pumping and conveyance facilities for delivery of water into - the tank would be required, and additional pressure reducing valves would be needed in the distribution system. Due to these factors, the two upper tank positions were eliminated from detailed consideration in the EA. • DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Page 5 Vail Meadows Water Storage Tank . 2. On -Site Replacement of Existing Tank This alternative involves replacement of the existing tank with a new 1 mg tank at the same site as the existing 500,000 gallon tank, located within the boundaries of the Town of Vail. To meet minimum pressure requirements in the water distribution system for fire flows, a new tank at this location would have to be raised to a base elevation of 8,767 feet MSL. This alternative would require that the existing storage tank be taken out of service during installation of the new tank. The temporary interruption of water supply would be an unacceptable risk. Furthermore, this alternative may.cause unacceptable visual impacts associated with an elevated storage tank, and considerably higher costs would be associated with protective measures against avalanche hazard because the tank would be above ground instead of buried. 3. Site Locations Within the Town of Vail This alternative involves development of additional storage capacity elsewhere within the Town of Vail. East of the existing site is an alternative area within the Town of Vail and at the necessary elevation. This area is heavily wooded with mature tree stands and would be very difficult to excavate due to large amounts of exposed bedrock. This option is not feasible because of the level of surface disturbance that would be necessary to excavate, because complete landscape restoration would not be possible, and because visual impacts resulting from construction at this site would be substantial. Additionally, easements and a water main extension would be required at this location which would substantially increase the cost of the project. 4. Other Locations on National Forest System Lands This alternative involves development of additional storage capacity elsewhere within Forest Service Lands. At the elevation of 8,790 to the west of the proposed site, the . mountainsides are sloped steeply to the north and are heavily forested. This option would require considerable disturbance for construction of an access road, tree clearing, and construction of a platform for the storage tank. The environmental and visual impacts associated with this option would be much greater than would occur at the proposed site. • DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Page 6 Vail Meadows Water Storage Tank • IV. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Extensive environmental baseline information has been developed on the study area through several previous studies including the Black Lake No. 2 Enlargement Environmental Assessment, the Forest Service Environmental Statement for Meadow Mountain, various reports by the U.S. Geologic Survey and the Soil Conservation Service, and site specific investigations conducted under these projects.. Information from these studies has been summarized and updated with current field observations to provide a description of the site and the environmental and cultural conditions for the surrounding area. In this EA, the study area refers to an area bounded on the west by the Town of Avon; on the north by Interstate 70; on the east side by Vail Pass; and on the south by the divide between the Eagle River watershed and the Arkansas River. The project area is limited to the immediate vicinity of the proposed project, i.e. the Vail Meadows site. This EA focuses primarily (but not exclusively) on the general aspects of the physical and . biological environment, and cultural features for which issues and concerns were raised during scoping that could be affected by the proposed action. There are a total of thirteen resource categories. Each resource is discussed to a level of detail relative to its potential to be affected by the proposed. action. 0 A. Physiography and Geology The Town of Vail lies on the western slope of the Rocky Mountains at an elevation of approximately 8,000 feet, just west of the Gore Range. Physiography in the Vail Valley is quite diverse ranging from large, flat meadow areas to steep aspen, spruce and pine forested slopes. Mountain peaks, which surround the town on three sides, rise to elevations over 13,000 feet. Meadow areas which were once abundant within the valley are now primarily occupied by the Town of Vail, including both residential, commercial and recreational developments. Forested areas on the south side of the valley are now largely occupied by the Vail Ski Area but for the most part remain in their natural state with the exception of ski lifts and trails. The' Vail Valley is situated in a geologic structural trough which stretches from Vail Pass to the town of McCoy in north central Eagle County. Most of the area of the Vail Valley is underlain by the sedimentary rocks of the Minturn formation from the Pennsylvanian age. The Minturn formation consists of gray, pale yellow and red sandstone, interbedded with conglomerate and thin beds of shale. Outcrops of the Minturn formation can be found throughout the area. To a lesser extent, similar rocks belonging to the Maroon formation occur in the area. Some Precambrian gneisses and migmatites can also be found. 0 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Page 7 Vail Meadows Water Storaize Tank iDuring the quaternary period, several large valley glaciers were present within the Gore Creek Valley which gouged out the lower valley floor, forming steep cliffs. Oversteepening of the lower valley wall and deepening of the valley itself removed upslope support for large sections of the formational bedrock which dipped towards the valley axis. This glacial activity modified the mountain topography to approximately present conditions. A result of the oversteepening of many side slopes in the area is the existence of numerous unstable slopes which are the source of frequent small landslides. Mineral resource areas are defined as areas from which mineral extraction is possible given economic conditions and existing technology. Mineral resources can be metallics (precious and base -metal ores and ferrous -metal ores), non - metallics (construction aggregates, building stones, evaporites) and mineral fuels (coal, oil, natural gas, oil shale, uranium). There are no known mineral resource areas at the locations of the alternative storage tank sites considered in this EA., Currently mined mineral resources, namely construction aggregates, are located to the east of the study area in the larger creeks and river valleys, and metallics are found to the south in the vicinity of Gilman. B. Natural Hazards Geologic hazards typical for high mountain areas include seismicity, faults, liquefaction, landslides and associated slope stability problems. Rockfall, mud and debris flows and ground surface subsidence are also sources of geologic hazard. The majority of potential geological hazards typical for mountain areas in Colorado have been defined by Rogers et. al. (1974). The State of Colorado is located in the interior of the North American plate, far from any plate boundaries. As such, Colorado is considered an area of low seismic risk. The potential for earthquake hazard in the study area was evaluated by reviewing seismic histories and taking into account the hazard zone system applied by Uniform Building Code criteria. Under this evaluation scale, high earthquake risk areas are labeled Zone 4 and low earthquake risk areas are Zone 1. Based on the known fault system, Colorado is located in seismic risk Zone 1 although the most recent data indicate that the state should be in Zone 2 (moderately low risk) (Kirkham and Rogers, 1981). Two potentially active faults exist near the study area (Kirkham and Rogers, 1981). The Gore fault consists of a system of faults trending in a northwest- southeast direction approximately parallel to the Interstate 70 corridor and to the northeast of Vail Pass. The Mosquito fault lies further east of the Gore fault, near the Copper Mountain ski area, and has a north -south orientation. Neither of these faults cross any of the alternative tank locations evaluated in this EA. Liquefaction is a process which occurs when fine- grained, saturated soils are shaken during an earthquake. This process temporarily transforms soils into a fluid state. As the soil liquefies, structures within the soil mass may be damaged. Based on the limited DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Page 8 Vail Meadows Water Storage Tank seismic risks in the study area, and in the absence of significant, saturated fine - grained 1 soil deposits, hazards associated with liquefaction are considered unlikely to be of importance for any of the alternative tank location sites. Several studies of landslides in the area have been conducted over the past twenty years (Barton, et al., 1972; Colton et al., 1975; Golder & Associates, 1984, 1985, 1986; Robinson and Cochran, 1971; and Cattany et al., 1986). Many small, isolated landslides have occurred over time within the study area and numerous minor landslides of soils covering the bedrock formations have been documented. Larger landslides have also occurred and include several caused by glacial activity. Portions of the Vail Ski Area have been developed on ancient landslides. In 1986, Governor Lamm's Minturn Earthflows Task Force published the results of their review of the problem of landslides in the Dowds Junction area and summarized the available mitigation options. ( Cattany et al., 1986). None of these studies have identified the Vail Meadows Storage tank site as an active or potentially active landslide area. Rockfall is a common geologic hazard within the study area. Rockfalls are typically associated with the presence of sandstone cliffs of the Minturn formation bedrock. As these slopes are usually steep (on the order of 25 to 30 degrees), the moving rock fragments can reach high velocities and become a serious hazard to structures located in their path. Rockfall in the study area is largely seasonally related, with the majority of the rockfalls occurring during the spring snowmelt period. Areas of the rockfall hazard are relatively well defined within the Town of Vail and mitigation measures have been undertaken to protect above - ground structures exposed to this hazard. The Vail Meadows Storage tank site is not located within any of the inventoried rockfall hazard areas. Mud and debris flows occur when a water saturated mass of soil flows rapidly down slope. Mudflows typically develop during torrential rains or during very rapid snowmelt runoff. Runoff initiates rapid erosion and transport of poorly consolidated surficial material. Numerous mudflows have been documented in the Gore Creek valley and on the slopes above the Eagle River. While there is evidence of historical debris flow activity within the drainage area above the Vail Meadows site, the area now appears to be stable due to dense forest and vegetative cover. The Vail Meadows Storage tank site is not located within any inventoried mudflow or debris flow hazard areas. Several snow avalanche hazard zones exist within the study area. Some of these avalanche "chutes" are relatively small and pose no threat to homes or other structures. Homes and buildings lying within the snow runout paths of other larger chutes have required implementation of protective measures such as diversion or splitting structures. Avalanche hazard potential within the study area has been extensively studied. by the Town of Vail and others. Reports from previous studies are listed in the References section of this EA (Mears, 1976, 1990, 1995; Halley, 1975, 1977; Hydro -Triad, Inc., 1990). • DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Page 9 Vail Meadows Water Storage Tank The existing 500,000 gallon water storage tank, and the site of the proposed project, lie within the runout zone for the Vail Meadows Avalanche. Because of the relative high hazard this chute presents to the existing storage tank and nearby homes, several studies have been conducted to characterize the dynamics and runout path of snow slides at this site. This information has been relied on in the design of the proposed project. C. Soils The U.S. Soil Conservation Service has identified, described and mapped soils within the Vail Valley and throughout Eagle County. Soils within the study area are relatively deep and are the product of either weathering of sandy rocks or deposition by streams or glaciers. Most of the soils are sandy, include a considerable amount of gravel and are relatively permeable. Soils generally are colluvial, debris flow deposits on the mountain slopes, and deep alluvial deposits in drainage bottoms. Soils at the site of the proposed project have been studied to provide information for foundation design purposes (Chen Northern, 1990). Subsoils consist of approximately one foot of topsoil overlying medium dense silty sandy gravels with occasional sand lenses. Sandy soils contain some cobbles and boulders. Gravels.extend down approximately 12 feet. Approximately sixteen feet of loose to medium dense, silty and slightly gravelly sand exists from depths of 12 to 28 feet. Dense sandy gravel occurs Is from 28 to 31 feet below the surface. No free water was encountered in borings during the time of drilling (November 1990), although soils were fairly moist. In most areas at the site of the proposed project, soils are relatively stable as a result of the mature grass and shrub vegetative cover. Spring runoff and occasional heavy rains have resulted in some erosive damage around and the existing tank and along the site access road to the north. D. Groundwater Groundwater conditions are variable throughout the study area and are largely a function of topographic conditions and the presence of streams or other surface water bodies. In areas close to Gore Creek, the Eagle River, and other smaller streams, shallow alluvial aquifers are present. The depth to the top of the water table can vary both on a seasonal and annual basis. Water table elevations are usually highest in areas adjacent to streams an d decrease in depth below the surface with distance from the stream banks. Water table elevations may occasionally and temporarily be close to the ground surface during periods of torrential rains or during periods of rapid snowmelt, but these conditions rapidly decline following these periods. Groundwater may also be encountered at shallow depths in relatively flat areas such as local depressions or immediately adjacent to natural springs. • DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Page 10 Vail Meadows Water Storage Tank Several alluvial groundwater wells to the east of Vail Village supply most of the municipal water for the Vail Valley and these wells also have a localized effect on groundwater levels. In some portions of the study area, topographic modifications for highway or road construction have changed natural drainage conditions and may influence the groundwater levels and recharge areas. At the site of the proposed. project, several test pits were dug during site wetland investigations. Several of these test pits were excavated to 2.5 feet and within 10 feet of a small intermittent stream that traverses the project site. Groundwater was not encountered in any of the test pits, indicating that alluvial groundwater in the area is probably limited to a narrow area immediately next to the stream, and probably occurs only when the stream is flowing. Test borings to 31 feet below the ground surface for investigation of soil conditions at the site encountered moist soils but no free water or saturated soils. E. Hydrology The study area is located within the Gore Creek watershed which is tributary to the Eagle and Colorado Rivers. Streams and creeks within the study area are fed primarily by precipitation, the majority of which is snow during the winter months. Consequently, peak streamflows usually occurs in early to mid -June. Streamflow during the late summer, fall, an d winter originates mainly from groundwater discharges. 0 Gore Creek drains approximately 100 square miles and is the primary source of water supply for the Vail Ski Area and the Town of Vail. The mean annual stream flow in Gore Creek at its mouth is 129 cubic feet per second (cfs), with an average annual discharge of approximately 92,000 acre feet. Peak flows during spring runoff reach 1,500 cfs during the month of June; the lowest recorded flows have been between 10 and 12 cfs during the month of February. The water supply for the Town of Vail is diverted from Gore Creek primarily via an alluvial well field located near the confluence of Booth Creek and used for domestic purposes, lawn irrigation, and golf course irrigation. Water for snowmaking at the Vail Ski Area is withdrawn from Gore Creek by way of an infiltration gallery located at a point near the confluence of Red Sandstone Creek below the discharge point for the Vail Wastewater Treatment Plant. Snowmaking water supplies are also obtained from an infiltration gallery at the confluence of Gore Creek with the Eagle River. An unnamed intermittent stream traverses the site of the proposed project and drains the steep slopes rising to the south. The drainage area above the existing tank is approximately 205 acres.with elevations ranging from 8,760 feet MSL at the existing tank to about 11,360 at the top of the drainage. The stream channel is somewhat incised as it flows through the Vail Meadows site. The stream typically flows only during the spring and early summer months, and is often dry during the remainder of the year. 0 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Page 11 Vail Meadows Water Storage Tank During a site visit on June 5, 1995, a flow of about 4 cfs was measured. During a site visit in early November of 1995, the stream was virtually dry. An analysis of potential flood flows in the Vail Meadows drainage indicates that a 100 year flood event could generate flows of about 40 cfs at the site of the proposed tank. (See Hydrology Report, Appendix C) Field observations in the upper reaches of the Vail Meadows drainage above the proposed tank site were conducted by Robert Weaver on July 10, 1995. The gradient of the stream is quite steep, averaging about 40 percent, and the streambanks are very stable as evidenced by the dense vegetation root mat along the stream. The streambed consists of large semi - angular rocks that are well packed together and bedrock outcroppings which form a series of small waterfalls. These conditions are consistent from the headwaters, where the stream channel becomes defined at about 10,600 feet elevation, down to where the gradient breaks just above the proposed tank site. The stream channel appears to be quite stable and there is very little evidence of erosion in the drainage area, even in areas that have been impacted by avalanches. There is a sharp break in the gradient of the stream where it reaches the Vail Meadows site approximately 300 feet south of the existing water storage tank. About 150 feet below this break in the gradient, the stream bends sharply to the east, traverses the valley floor above the existing tank, and then turns back to the north and downhill generally parallel to the site access road but roughly 200 feet to the east (Figure 2). It appears that the course of the stream was moved to its current location during construction of the existing storage tank. The original course of the stream appears to have continued in a generally south to north direction, through the area where the existing tank is located. During high flow conditions, it appears that flows periodically exceed the channel capacity in the area where the channel bends to the east above the existing tank, with excess water spilling down the original stream course and following an artificial drainage to the west of the existing tank. This has resulted in some erosive damage to the access road below the existing storage tank with some deposition of soil and gravel on Snowshoe Lane. Ultimately this material reaches Gore Creek via storm the storm drainage system. A large avalanche at the Vail Meadows site could have an impact on the pattern of seasonal snowmelt and streamflow in the drainage through the tank site. The most important change following an avalanche would be that snow distributed throughout the upper reaches of the drainage would slide to the lower reaches and become concentrated in the avalanche runout area at the site of the proposed tank. The potential impacts of an avalanche on streamflows would depend primarily on the counteracting effects of faster ablation resulting from the movement of the snow to a lower elevation where melt rates are higher and a reduction in meltwater production due to concentration in the runout area (i.e. reduction in the ration of snow surface area to volume). (de Scally, 1996) DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Page 12 Vail Meadows Water Storage Tank Application of de Scally's formulas for computing potential changes in streamflow associated with avalanches to the basin above the storage tank indicates in the Vail Meadows drainage, the impacts associated with the concentration of snow in the avalanche runout area would more that offset the impacts of the higher melt rate. This result is consistent with research in other areas. At the Vail Meadows site, a major avalanche could result in a reduction in average daily snowmelt flows of up to about 1.6 cfs. (de Scally, 1992) F. Water Quality The Colorado Water Quality Control Commission has classified Gore Creek and its tributaries for the following uses: Class 1 cold water aquatic life, domestic water supply, Class 2 recreation and agriculture. The Eagle River from Beldon downstream to the confluence with Gore Creek is designated as Use Protected with classified uses including Class 1 cold water aquatic life, domestic water supply, Class 2 recreation and agriculture. These classified uses extend down the Eagle River from the confluence with Gore Creek to the confluence with the Lake Creek, with recreation upgraded to Class 1 for the mainstem and its tributaries (Colorado Department of Health, 1996). Table 1 provides a summary of key water quality parameters monitored in Black Gore Creek and Gore Creek near Vail. Data are from the State of Colorado STORET water quality data storage system. Gore Creek is predominately a calcium - bicarbonate type • stream with hardness in the soft to moderately hard categories (average hardness is about 59.2 mg /1 CaCO3). Values for pH range from 6.9 to 8.6 with a median value of 7.80 and the water is fairly alkaline. Dissolved oxygen (DO) content ranges from 9.3 to 9.9 mg /l with a mean of 9.3 mg /1 indicating that DO levels are generally at or above the 100 percent saturation level. Dissolved nutrients (nitrates and phosphates) are generally low with nitrate- nitrogen averaging about 9.6 mg/1(range 0.01 to 29.0 mg /1) and ortho - phosphate averaging 0.02 mg /1(range 0.0 to. 15 mg /1). Degradation results from increased concentrations of nutrients, total dissolved solids, select metals (cadmium and lead) and suspended solids. Water quality throughout the Gore Creek drainage is generally very good, although there is some degradation from nonpoint sources of pollution including runoff from Interstate 70 and urbanized areas. No sampling data is available for the intermittent creek at the Vail Meadows site. Table 1 Selected Water Quality Parameters Black Gore Creek, Gore Creekl and the Eagle River2 • 1. EPA STORETT water quality data collected 1973 to 1983. 2. Advanced Sciences, Inc. 1990. G. Vegetation The study area is located primarily within the Lodgepole pine and Engleman spruce - subalpine fir communities which occur between 7,000 to 11,000 feet in elevation. Lodgepole pine, typically found at 7,000 to 9,000 feet, often forms dense stands with little understory. At higher elevations, Lodgepole pine gives way to spruce -fir forest. Douglas -fir, aspen, lodgepole pine, and blue spruce are also found in this forest type. These species often form dense stands with little herbaceous understory because of shading and litter accumulation (Brown, 1985). Historically, the valley floors within the study area were characterized by grassy . meadows, wet willow meadows, and sagebrush benches. Many of these vegetation communities still exist but in areas impacted by human development they are much smaller and less frequent. Understory species in the study area vary depending on topographic, soil, and microclimate conditions. The more common species of graminoids and forbs found in the understory of quaking aspen are blue wild -rye, fringed brome, elk sedge, bedstraw, Richardson's geranium, and fireweed (Hoffman and Alexander, 1983). DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Page 13 Vail Meadows Water Storage Tank Black Gore Creek near Gore Creek Eagle River Parameter Vail at Vail below Dowds Junction Dissolved Oxygen (mg /1) Average 9.54 9.30 9.62 (Min -Max) 9.1 -10) (7.5 -9.9) (8.0 -10.8) pH Average 7.93 7.80 7.87 (Min -Max) (7 -8.6) (6.9 -8.6) (7.0 -8.7) Total Alkalinity (mg /1) Average 88.23 63.60 71.57 (Min -Max) (53 -100) (26 -80) (34 -98) Nitrite + Nitrate N Diss. (mg/1) Average 0.72 0.96 -- (Min -Max) (.01 -12) (.01 -29) - -- Orthophosphate PO4 (mg/1) Average 0.72 0.02 - -- (Min -Max) (0 -1.8) (0 -15) - -- Total Hardness (mg /1) Average 83.01 59.20 145.25 (Min -Max) (16 -150) (21 -110) (46 -205) Iron Dissolved (Ng /1) Average 51.57 65.80 94.28 (Min -Max) (30 -100) (20 -190) (20 -170) Manganese Dissolved (Ng /1) Average 40.00 6.00 - -- 1. EPA STORETT water quality data collected 1973 to 1983. 2. Advanced Sciences, Inc. 1990. G. Vegetation The study area is located primarily within the Lodgepole pine and Engleman spruce - subalpine fir communities which occur between 7,000 to 11,000 feet in elevation. Lodgepole pine, typically found at 7,000 to 9,000 feet, often forms dense stands with little understory. At higher elevations, Lodgepole pine gives way to spruce -fir forest. Douglas -fir, aspen, lodgepole pine, and blue spruce are also found in this forest type. These species often form dense stands with little herbaceous understory because of shading and litter accumulation (Brown, 1985). Historically, the valley floors within the study area were characterized by grassy . meadows, wet willow meadows, and sagebrush benches. Many of these vegetation communities still exist but in areas impacted by human development they are much smaller and less frequent. Understory species in the study area vary depending on topographic, soil, and microclimate conditions. The more common species of graminoids and forbs found in the understory of quaking aspen are blue wild -rye, fringed brome, elk sedge, bedstraw, Richardson's geranium, and fireweed (Hoffman and Alexander, 1983). DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Page 14 Vail Meadows Water Storage Tank South facing slopes within the study area typically support sagebrush, scrub oak, and other woody shrubs, with grassy understory and meadows and scattered aspen groves. Most of the other valley slopes, in contrast, support aspen- conifer woodlands. Mountain/plateau grasslands and meadows are often found interspersed with the other dominant vegetation and typically include a variety of species. Grasses, forbs, and scattered shrubs dominate the herbaceous cover. The more common grass species include bromes, bluegrasses, oatgrasses, sedges, wheatgrasses, fescues, needlegrasses, hairgrasses, reedgrasses, bentgrasses, and junegrass. The forb component varies with location and is diverse throughout the region. Shrubs include big sagebrush, fringed sagebrush, rabbitbrush, snakeweed, shrubby cinquefoils, wild roses, and prickly pear (Mueggler and Stewart, 1980). The project site is vegetated by primarily with scattered aspen trees, grasses, wildflowers and noxious weeds. In addition, the small intermittent stream supports scattered.willow clumps, sedges and rushes in some areas adjacent to its banks. H. Wetlands, Riparian Areas and Floodplains Several recent studies in conjunction with this and other projects have identified and delineated wetlands within the study area. Small isolated wetlands occur throughout the study area as do many narrow strips of riparian wetlands along Gore Creek, its tributaries and the Eagle River. Riparian scrub wetlands exist on hillslopes and alluvial terraces above and adjacent to Gore Creek and the Eagle River. The predominant overstory vegetation consists of various species of woody shrubs including mountain plainleaf, wolf willow, bog and water birch, red osier dogwood, and thinleaf alder. Ground cover consists of species common to wet meadow areas such as sedges, rushes and wet grasses. Riparian scrub wetland areas are valued for functions including flood storage and desynchronization, shoreline anchoring and dissipation of erosive forces, sediment trapping, nutrient retention and removal, wildlife and aquatic habitat, and heritage values. They are moderately valued for ground water discharge, and food chain support. They may also *have some minimal groundwater recharge value. Wetland vegetation at the site of the proposed project is limited to small isolated willow clumps immediately adjacent to the'unnamed intermittent creek traversing the site. There are also a few areas of rush and sedge growth intermixed with the willow clumps. Wetland vegetation is not continuous along the course of the drainage and averages only about 2 feet in width either side of the drainage. Wetland vegetation at the Vail Meadows site, although sparse, provides some wildlife habitat and certainly functions to help stabilize the banks of the intermittent stream. The total area which is covered predominately by wetland vegetation at the site is estimated to be about 0.05 acre. • DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Page 15 Vail Meadows Water Storage Tank As previously described in the discussion of groundwater, the water table was not encountered during excavation of several test pits for examination soils. Soils in these areas are primarily sandy loams and do not show evidence of regular and substantial variation in groundwater elevations, nor do they show much organic content. As such, the areas containing wetland plant species technically do not meet the hydrologic and soil criteria used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for delineation of jurisdiction wetlands under Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Public Law 92 -500). However, these areas do appear to provide functions which are similar to those provided by jurisdictional wetlands including wildlife habitat, shoreline anchoring, sediment trapping and flood retention. For this reason, it is likely that the Corps would require mitigation of any wetland impacts. I. Wildlife Wildlife resources within the study area are predominantly upland in character. Specific habitats include subalpine meadow, riparian wetlands, and spruce, pine, fir and aspen forest. These habitats provide for a diverse assemblage of both game and non -game wildlife. Wildlife resources have been extensively studies in the Vail area, with many of the studies focusing on the Vail Ski Area. The Ski Area provides superior habitat for a wide variety of wildlife species due to the diversity of ecosystems. Some of the most commonly appearing species of birds and small mammals are red - tailed hawks, great horned owls, blue grouse, white tailed ptarmigan, morning doves, chickadee, nuthatch, warblers, dipper, bats, marmots, badger, skunk, weasel, red fox, porcupine, pika, mink, muskrat, ground squirrels, mice, voles, and rabbits. The dominant large mammals that inhabit the area are mule deer and elk, which are attracted to the area during the summer by the abundant forage, well interspersed habitat, and good cover available at higher elevations. The Vail Ski Area and the proposed storage tank site are located in the northeast corner of Game Management Unit (GMU) 45. Winter range is the most limiting factor for the 600 elk which inhabit GMU 45. Winter range in the Vail area occurs to the west, south and north of the Vail Ski Area (Forest Service, 1986). In recent years, elk have been observed during the early winter months in the aspen behind Cascade Village to the east of the proposed project site. The upper half of the area behind Cascade Village is heavily used as a movement corridor. Elk generally tend to migrate into and across the ski area from west to east in the spring following the receding snowline. In the fall and early winter, the elk move across and out of the ski area to the west and south. During the spring migration, calving occurs at elevations between 8,400 and 9,600 feet, depending on the snowline elevation. Potential calving habitat within the Vail Ski Area includes portions of Sun Up and Sun Down Bowls, the Cascade Village area, Golden Peak, Teacup Bowl and the east side of China Bowl. Most of the elk moving through the ski area use summer ranges to the east DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Page 16 Vail Meadows Water Storage Tank of Two Elk Pass. The most important summer range areas within current and proposed , permit areas are the Category 2 bowls, the upper portions of the Category 3 bowls, and the ridge to the north of Mill Creek Road (Thompson 1985). Deer winter range areas are located primarily between Edwards and Gypsum to the east of the Vail Ski Area, with some deer wintering as far east as Dowds Junction and as far west as Dotsero. The area on the eastern edge of the ski area, to the south of Gore Creek and east of the Eagle River, is used as a staging area for northwesterly migration and is considered critical habitat by the CDOW. During the summer months, deer are common throughout the ski area. The best habitats are aspen/lodgepole stands on the north side of the ski area, particularly the lower aspen habitats which support luxuriant shrub/herbaceous understories. Deer habitat throughout the current permit area is considered good to excellent. Deer using the Vail Ski Area have demonstrated a remarkable tolerance for the relatively high levels of human activity within the area (Thompson, 1985). Residential, commercial and ski area development in the Gore Valley and to the west over the past 20 years has raised concerns regarding impacts to some migratory big game species. The Colorado Division of Wildlife has given particular attention to development activities which encroach upon winter and - summer ranges, and calving areas, or potentially interfere with migratory movements. Numerous game tracking studies have been conducted in the southern portion of the Vail Ski Area, as this area is heavily used • by both deer and elk during as a migratory corridor and as calving areas and summer range. The proposed project site at Vail Meadows is not an important summer or winter range area, nor is it within an identified migratory corridor. Habitat conditions to the south of the proposed storage tank site are suitable for big game summer range as evidenced by signs of browsing and fairly frequent sightings of deer, elk, and black bear by local residents. J. Threatened and Endangered Species The White River Nation Forest has completed a Biological Evaluation and a Biological Assessment for the proposed project which are included in this EA as Appendix D. The purpose of the Biological Evaluation is ensure that the proposed action will not jeopardize species listed as sensitive by the Regional Forester or Forest species or special emphasis. The purpose of the Biological Assessment is to document the analysis used and conclusions reached regarding potential affects on any Federally listed threatened or endangered fish, wildlife, and plant species due to the proposed action. The White River National Forest lists 34 species as sensitive or of special emphasis. Evaluation of habitat requirements and field reconnaissance concluded that the proposed project would not conflict with any of the listed species. (Johnston, 1995) i DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Page 17 Vail Meadows Water Storage Tank • A list of Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate species occurring on the White River National Forest was received from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service on March 23, 1994 and February 14, 1995. (See Appendix D.) The following Federally listed or Candidate wildlife species are potentially found in the vicinity of the proposed project: Bald Eagle (endangered); Peregrine Falcon (endangered); Canada Lynx (can didate); Whooping Crane (endangered); Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (threatened); Black Footed Ferret (endangered); Greenback Cutthroat Trout (threatened); Bonytail Chub (endangered); Humpback Chub (endangered); Colorado River Squawfish (endangered); and Razorback Sucker (endangered). K. Air Quality The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Air Quality Control Division has adopted the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for "criteria pollutants" which have been established by EPA to protect public health (Title 40 CFR Part 50). Eagle County and the Town of Vail are located within Colorado Air Quality Control Region 12, which is in attainment for all criteria pollutants except PM,, (particulate matter under 10 microns). The applicable national and state standards for PM,,, , carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxides are shown below: Pollutant Average time Concentration a Carbon Monoxide 1 hour b 35 ppm (40 mg /m3) 8 hour b 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) Particulate (PM,,,) Annual arithmetic mean 50 µg /m3 24 hour b 150 µg /m3 Nitrogen Dioxide Annual arithmetic mean 100 µg /m3 No short-term standard Notes: a) ppm = parts of pollutant per million parts of air; mg/m3 = milligrams of pollutant per cubic meter of air at standard conditions (atmospheric pressure of 29.92 inches Hg and temperature of 25° C); µg/m3 = micrograms pollutant per cubic meter of air at standard conditions. b) Concentration not to be exceeded more than one time per year in averaging time period. The pollutants of interest for this project are carbon monoxide emitted from construction equipment and vehicles traveling to and from the site, particulate matter from • construction activities and diesel emissions. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Page 18 Vail Meadows Water Storage Tank Generally, ambient air quality in rural areas of Eagle County is well below the PM,, standard, but compliance problems exist in some populated areas valleys due to the combined affects of auto emissions, wood burning fireplaces, road sanding, and other sources. Because Vail is prone to frequent temperature inversions during the winter, emissions from these sources has caused seasonal decreases in local air quality. The Colorado Air Quality Control Division has periodically monitored air quality in Vail. Based on this monitoring, Vail has not exceeded National Ambient Air Quality Standards over the past few years. (Town of Vail, 1996) The Town of Vail conducted its own study of air quality in the Vail Valley in 1992. That study determined that although PM,o standards were not being exceeded, wood - burning fireplaces account for 74% of the variation in maximum levels and 79% of the variation in winter averages PM,o. The total number of skier days combined with the number of fireplaces accounted for 90% of the variation in PM10. This indicated that the number of wood - burning fireplaces and the number of winter visitors have a significant impact on air quality during periods of temperature inversions. The study concluded that gas conversions in lodges could significantly improve air quality (Town of Vail, 1992). Carbon Monoxide (CO) levels in Vail were monitored during the 1987 -1988 winter and no exceedances of federal standards were found (Town of Vail, 1992). Several years ago Vail adopted ordinances prohibiting wood - burning fireplaces in new construction, allowing only the installation of certified fuel burning devices, gas appliances, and gas log fireplaces (City ordinance 8.28.030 and 8.28.040, Vail, 4- 7 -92). , L. Visual Resources The Vail Valley is generally an area of high scenic quality. The study area consists of mountainous terrain ranging from approximately 7,500 feet in elevation at Dowds Junction to 10,549 feet at the top of Vail Pass. Surrounding peaks rise to elevation over 13,000 feet. Skiing, hiking, biking and other outdoor recreational activities are enhanced by the relatively pristine nature of visual amenities in the area. The visual appearance changes dramatically with the seasons. The dominance of aspen trees provide a lush, green vegetative cover during the spring and summer months and spectacular changing colors in the fall. The U.S. Forest Service has assessed the visual resources-of the portions of the study area lying within the National Forests using its Visual Management System. This system determines the visual quality objectives (VQO's) to be used by the U.S. Forest Service for managing its visual resources. U.S. Forest Service lands located within the study area are managed for the VQO's of partial retention (PR). Under a PR classification, activities that alter the landscape must be visually subordinate to that landscape (USDA, 1984c). The Vail Meadows site is visible from much of the residential area lying to the north and from the Interstate 70 corridor. However, the existing water storage tank, which is DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Page 19 Vail Meadows Water Storage Tank entirely above ground level and visible from parts of East Vail to the northwest of the site, blocks the view of the area where the new tank would be built.. M. Cultural Resources Historic land -use patterns have radically altered many portions of the study area. From the 1880s through the 1960s widespread cultivation altered much of the land surface. Since the early 1960s development within the Town of Vail, the Vail Ski Area and the I- 70 corridor have altered major portions of the valley floors. In some areas, modifications to the valley floor along Gore Creek have been extensive. Most surface or shallowly buried prehistoric sites along the Interstate 70 corridor have been excavated or destroyed. However, there is some potential that more deeply buried sites may remain along portions of the old U.S. Highway 6 or in broader portions of the valley where earth- moving involved with construction of the interstate highway was less extensive (Metcalf, 1992). Several cultural resource investigation have been completed in the study area and the results of these surveys are summarized below. In 1993, Metcalf Archeological Consultants conducted a cultural resources inventory in conjunction with environmental studies related to construction of cellular communications facilities near the Vail Meadows site. This survey did not reveal any significance cultural resources in the surveyed area. The U.S. Forest Service recently conducted a cultural resources inventory of the proposed Vail Meadows site during investigations concerning a land exchange with the Town of Vail. This survey did not reveal any indication of cultural significance and the site has been "cleared" (Kathy Hardy, USFS, pers. comm. 2/28/96). U DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Page 20 Vail Meadows Water Storage Tank • V. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES A. Physiography and Geology 1. Alternative A: No Action Under the No Action alternative, a new water storage tank would not be constructed. The District would continue to rely on the existing 500,000 gallon storage tank at the Vail Meadows site. Implication of this alternative on storage needs for emergency situations and fire protection are discussed in Purpose and Need section of this EA and in planning studies conducted for the District (RBD, 1991; Merrick, 1994). Exposure of the existing tank to high severity avalanche hazard would continue to pose a risk because water levels in the tank would be drawn down more frequently. 2. Alternative B: Proposed Action - Vail Meadows Site The primary change in existing physiographic and geologic features associated with construction of a 1 mg water storage tank at the proposed site at Vail Meadows would be the excavation necessary for tank placement. Tank placement would require excavation of approximately 2,500 cubic yards of soil. Spoil material excavated would be used to partially bury the tank on the downslope side. The excavation area would be slightly larger than the diameter of the tank to accommodate a small access road around its perimeter. This would require additional cut on the upslope side of the tank. The tank would be fully buried on the downslope side, and fill material would extending roughly 10 feet above the pre- existing grade. This alternative would also require relocation of a small intermittent stream channel. The channel would be reconstructed at a slightly higher elevation than the existing channel. Additional information regarding modifications necessary to the channel location is provided in the discussion of hydrologic consequences below. 3. Alternative C: Vail Meadows Site - Lower Tank Position Changes to physiographic and geologic features associated with construction of a tank at a lower position at the Vail Meadows site would be very similar to the Proposed Action although due to existing slope conditions, would not require as much excavation. However, the downslope (north) side of the tank would be entirely above grade and a retaining wall approximately 60 feet long and 8 to 10 feet high would be required to create an adequate foundation for the new tank. In addition, this alternative would not require permanent relocation of the small stream channel, although the channel would need to be relocated during construction activities. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Page 21 Vail Meadows Water Storage Tank • 4. Cumulative Effects There would be no significant cumulative impact to area physiographic and geological resources associated with. either of the three alternatives. B.. Natural Hazards 1. Alternative A: No Action The No Action Alternative results in a much greater risk associated with exposure of the existing 500,000 gallon water tank at Vail Meadows to snow avalanche hazard. A study of the potential impacts of an avalanche on the existing storage tank indicated that a 100 - year avalanche event could result in the tank being damaged or ruptured if the avalanche occurred at a time when the tank was less than 80 percent full of water. (Hydro -Triad, Ltd., 1977) 2. Alternative B: Proposed Action - Vail Meadows Site The proposed new water storage tank at the Vail Meadows site has been designed to withstand maximum anticipated loading conditions associated with a 100 -year avalanche event. Tank materials, reinforcement, and below grade positioning would provide sufficient protection to prevent structural damage or movement of the tank. The additional 1 mg of water storage capacity would enable the District to maintain higher levels of water in storage in the existing tank throughout most of the winter. Changes to topography associated with the new tank would not have any measurable impact on the avalanche runout area below the tank. (Mears, 1995) 3. 'Alternative C: Vail Meadows Site - Lower Tank Position The uphill side of the new tank would be below grade and design features would be included to enable the new tank to withstand snow loads associated with a 100 -year avalanche. This tank site, because of its close proximity to the existing tank may effectively reduce the potential side impact of an avalanche on the existing tank. However, this location may also increase the risk of damage from snow loading on the top of the existing tank because a large avalanche could pass over the top of the new tank to the top of the existing tank. This could offset the potential benefits of being able to maintain higher water levels in the tank when it is used in combination with the new storage tank resulting in a higher risk of existing tank failure DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Vail Meadows Water Storage Tank 4. Cumulative Effects Page 22 There would be no change cumulative impact in area natural hazards associated with either of the three alternatives. The Proposed Action would result in reduced avalanche hazard to the District's water storage facilities. C. Soils 1. Alternative A: No Action Under the No Action alternative, construction of a new storage tank would not occur and there would therefore be no associated soil disturbance. However, as discussed below under hydrologic consequences, soil erosion resulting from overtopping of the small stream during peak flow periods would continue and would ultimately require some form of stream channel stabilization and storm drainage improvements at the site. 2. Alternative B: Proposed Action - Vail Meadows Site Changes to soil features associated with the proposed action would primarily be due to construction of the tank and the required excavation. The area of permanent soil disturbance associated with construction of the access road. and emplacement of the storage tank would be approximately 11,000 sq.ft. (0.25 ac.). The area of temporary disturbance during construction activities would be approximately 34,000 sq.ft. (0.78 ac.). During project construction and the period of time required for reestablishment of vegetation, soil losses from erosion will be minimized through the use of sediment control fencing, hay bales, sediment retention ponds and other construction practices designed to prevent soil erosion. The proposed action would also require relocation of a small stream channel. This action would include improvements to the stormwater drainage at the site resulting in a reduction in soil losses from erosion. 3. Alternative C: Vail Meadows Site - Lower Tank Position Changes to soil characteristics associated with construction of a tank at a lower position at the Vail Meadows site would be virtually identical to the Proposed Action. 4. Cumulative Effects • There would be no significant cumulative impact to area soils associated with either of the three alternatives. 0 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Page 23 Vail Meadows Water Storage Tank • D. Groundwater 1. Alternative A: No Action The No Action alternative would result in no consequences to regional or local groundwater conditions. 2. Alternative B: Proposed Action -Vail Meadows Site As evidenced by soil and wetland studies at the Vail Meadows site that involved excavation of test pits, groundwater appears to be present only in areas immediately adjacent to the small stream channel that traverses the site. Furthermore, groundwater appears to be present only during periods when water is flowing on the surface of the stream channel, which is generally limited to the snow melt period. For these reasons, the affects on local groundwater conditions at the site will be minimal and will be limited to the immediate vicinity of the construction activities. 3. Alternative C: Vail Meadows Site - Lower Tank Position Changes to groundwater conditions associated with construction of a tank at a lower . position at the Vail Meadows site would be virtually identical to the Proposed Action. 4. Cumulative Effects There would be no significant cumulative impact to local or regional groundwater resources associated with either of the three alternatives. E. Hydrology 1. Alternative A: No Action Under the No Action alternative, there would be no affect on existing hydrologic conditions. However, as discussed below, erosive damage in the area of the existing storage tank resulting from periodic overtopping of the small stream traversing the Vail Meadows site may require bank stabilization or other protective measures in the future. 2. Alternative B: Proposed Action -Vail Meadows Site As shown on the Site Plan (Appendix A) the Proposed Action would require relocation of the small intermittent stream channel that descends from the steep slopes to the south and traverses the Vail Meadows site. This stream channel relocation would impact approximately 360 feet of the existing stream channel through the site. The existing channel would be replaced by approximately 420 feet of existing channel that will be DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Page 24 Vail Meadows Water Storage Tank designed to contain flows of up to 30 cfs. This new stream channel would cross the • valley floor about 100 feet to the north of the new tank and continue down the valley on the east side of the access road. At the north end of the site, just below the point where there is a gradient break in existing stream channel, a debris catchment and diversion structure will be installed. This catchment would serve to reduce the risk of stream channel obstruction that could be caused by debris from an avalanche, and the diversion structure would be designed to divert flows in excess of 25 cfs into an overflow channel. The overflow channel will be designed to convey about 15 cfs and will follow the course of the existing drainage for about 70 feet below the diversion. At this location, the overflow drainage will join new drainage course that will pass to the west of the new and existing storage tanks. A catch basin on the west side of the existing tank will divert drainage into a 30 inch culvert that will follow the site access road down drainage ditch on the north side of Snowshoe Lane. The drainage ditch along Snowshoe Lane in the Town of Vail will be improved to accommodate the overflow drainage. The drainage improvements described above will serve the reduce the erosive damage that has been caused by bank overtopping of the existing stream channel in the area immediately west of the existing tank and along the site access road. In addition, the proposed changes will improve the flood flow conveyance capabilities of the drainage system and reduce the risk of on -site and downstream damages that could be cause by a flood event. • There Proposed Action will enhance the Districts water supply system by increasing treated (potable) water storage capacity but will not result in any additional consumptive use of water. 3. Alternative C: Vail Meadows Site - Lower Tank Position Changes to hydrologic features associated with construction of a tank at a lower position at the Vail Meadows site would be virtually identical to the Proposed Action with temporary relocation of the stream during construction. Following construction, the stream channel would be restored to its existing course and improvements would be made to accommodate flood flows and reduce erosion problems. The impacts of these actions would be virtually identical to he the Proposed Action. 4. Cumulative Effects There would be no significant cumulative impact to local or regional hydrology associated with either of the three alternatives. Upon project completion, the relocated stream channel would serve to reduce site erosion and slightly reduce sediment loading to Gore Creek.. In addition, the risks associated with potential flooding would be reduced. • DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Page 25 Vail Meadows Water Storage Tank 0 F. Water Quality 1. Alternative A: No Action The No Action alternative would not result in any permanent impact to either surface or ground water quality at the project site or within the study area. Periodic erosion caused by bank overtopping of the unnamed stream at the Vail Meadows site would continue and would contribute to sediment loading to Gore Creek. 2. Alternative B: Proposed Action - Vail Meadows Site During the construction period, impacts to water quality will consist of imcreased sediment loading from disturbed area to the unnamed drainage below the site and to Gore Creek. This impact would occur primarily in the early stages of construction and during storm events. Because construction will begin in the spring during relatively high stream flows, sediment will most likely be transported downstream with very limited deposition in the stream channel. Sedimentation would be minimized through the use of construction practices designed to minimize and filter runoff from disturbed areas including the use of sediment control fencing, hay bales, and sediment retention ponds. Revegetation following construction would result in restoration of the site to pre - project conditions within a period of about three years. The Proposed Action would have a slight long term beneficial impact to the water quality of Gore Creek resulting from drainage improvements at the site and associated reductions in soil erosion. The relocated stream channel would be designed to prevent overtopping. and associated erosion under expected peak runoff conditions. 3. Alternative C: Vail Meadows Site - Lower Tank Position Changes to water quality associated with construction of a tank at the lower position at the Vail Meadows site would be virtually identical to the Proposed Action. 4. Cumulative Effects There would be no significant cumulative impact to local or regional water quality associated with either of the three alternatives, although the Proposed. Action may slightly reduce sediment loading to Gore Creek. • DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Page 26 Vail Meadows Water Storage Tank G. Vegetation 1. Alternative A: No Action Under the No Action alternative, there would be no impacts to vegetation at the project site or in the study area. 2. Alternative B: Proposed Action - Vail Meadows Site The Proposed Action would require permanent disturbance of vegetation and soils of approximately 11,000 sq.ft. (0.0.25 ac.). This disturbance would result from emplacement of the storage tank itself and grading for the access road to and around the perimeter of the tank. In addition, 34,000 sq.ft. (0.78 ac.) of temporary disturbance would result from construction activities in the area. The disturbed areas would include areas containing riparian wetland vegetation as well as areas that are dominated by a variety of grasses and noxious weeds. Impacts to areas with wetland vegetation would be mitigated as discussed below. Other disturbed areas would be revegetated using a native grass and wildflower seed mix along. 3. Alternative C: Vail Meadows Site - Lower Tank Position Changes to vegetative characteristics associated with construction of a tank at a lower . position at the Vail Meadows site would be virtually identical to the Proposed Action. 4. Cumulative Effects There would be no significant cumulative impact to vegetation resources associated with either of the three alternatives. H. Wetlands, Riparian Areas and Floodplains 1. Alternative A: No Action The No Action alternative would result in no impact to wetlands, riparian areas or floodplains. 2. Alternative B: Proposed Action - Vail Meadows Site The Proposed Action would require a permanent disturbance of wetland vegetation adjacent to the unnamed stream traversing the Vail Meadows site. Wetland vegetation consists of mature willow clumps interspersed with small areas of sedges, rushes and wet grasses immediately adjacent to the stream. While these areas do not technically meet the • DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Page 27 Vail Meadows Water Storage Tank • defining wetland criteria to come under the regulatory jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, they do provide functional values associated with wetlands. Impacts to areas sustaining wetland vegetation would be approximately 0.05 ac. These impacts would be fully mitigated through the establishment of a similar amount of wetland vegetation along the new stream channel. Willows, sedges, and rushes would be planted adjacent to the new stream channel during other revegetation efforts and shown on the Site Plan (Appendix A). This effort would serve both to stabilize the newly constructed stream banks and replace any lost wildlife habitat. It is also expected that some wetland vegetation would naturally become established along the relocated channel. Additional mitigation efforts are presented below under Specific Mitigation Measures. 3. Alternative C: Vail Meadows Site - Lower Tank Position Changes to wetland and riparian areas associated with construction of a storage tank at a lower position at the Vail Meadows site would be similar to the Proposed Action with the exception that this alternative would not require permanent relocation of the small stream channel. The area of impact to areas of wetland vegetation would be about 0.05 ac and mitigation requirements would be very similar to those described above for the Proposed Action. • 4. Cumulative Effects There would be no significant cumulative adverse impact to wetland or riparian areas associated with either of the three alternatives. Following stream relocation and revegetation efforts, streambanks would be more stable and could be more heavily vegetated with wetland plant species. The wetland functions and values currently found at the site could therefore be enhanced. I. Wildlife 1. Alternative A: No Action The No Action alternative would result in no impact to the wildlife habitats of bird and terrestrial species known to inhabit either the project site or the study area. 2. Alternative B: Proposed Action - Vail Meadows Site The Vail Meadows site provides suitable habitat for birds and small mammals including blue grouse, white - tailed ptarmigan, chickadee, nuthatch, warblers', marmots, badger, skunk, weasel, red fox, coyotes, pika, ground squirrels, mice, voles and rabbits. Approximately 11,000 sq.ft. (0.25 ac.) of this habitat would be permanently displaced by • the Proposed Action. In addition, approximately 34,000 sq.ft. (0.78 ac.) of this habitat DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Page 28 Vail Meadows Water Storage Tank would be temporarily disturbed during construction activities. During the construction . period, wildlife in the immediate vicinity would be displaced, at least temporarily, due. to habitat disturbance and human activity. Following project completion and restoration of disturbed areas, it is likely that wildlife would return to the area. 3. Alternative C: Vail Meadows Site - Lower Tank Position Changes to wildlife habitat associated with construction of a tank at a lower position at the Vail Meadows site would be virtually identical to the Proposed Action. 4. Cumulative Effects__ There would be no significant cumulative impact to area wildlife associated with either of the three alternatives. Area wildlife may be temporarily displaced during construction activities, but would be expected to reestablish in the area after project completion. J. Threatened and Endangered Species 1. Alternative A: No Action The No Action alternative would result in no impacts to Federally listed threatened or endangered species or those species listed by the U.S. Forest Service as sensitive or of Special Emphasis. 2. Alternative B: Proposed Action - Vail Meadows Site In April of 1995, the U.S. Forest Service conducted a Biological Assessment (BA) to identify and document potential affects on any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered species resulting from the Proposed Action at the Vail Meadows site (Appendix D). The BA determined that construction of a storage tank at this site would not adversely affect any Federally listed species. The Forest Service also conducted a Biological Evaluation (BE) in April, 1995 to identify and document potential affects resulting from the proposed action on species listed as either Sensitive to Region 2, or listed as Forest Service Species of Special Emphasis (Appendix D). The BE determined that the proposed action would not adversely affect any such species. In 1988, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in cooperation with water development interests, conservation groups and the states of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, implemented a program designed to conserve and recover these endangered fish while permitting new water development to proceed. This environmental assessment addresses the impacts of construction of a treated water storage tank that would make use of water • DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Page 29 Vail Meadows Water Storage Tank • currently available to the District and currently being used within the District's service area. The proposed project would not result in any additional consumptive uses of water that would be subject to depletion charges under the Recovery Program for the Colorado River Endangered fishes. 3. Alternative C: Vail Meadows Site - Lower Tank Position Potential affects, on habitats of Federally listed Threatened or Endangered species or on species listed as Sensitive or of Special Emphasis by the U.S. Forest Service, associated with construction of a tank at a lower position at the Vail Meadows site would be virtually identical to the Proposed Action. The BA and BE developed by the U.S. Forest Service have determined that no impacts would occur through project development at the Vail Meadows site. 4. Cumulative Effects There would be no cumulative impact to -Threatened, Endangered or other sensitive species that potentially inhabit the area associated with either of the three alternatives. K. Air Quality 0 1 1. Alternative A: No Action The No Action alternative would result in no impact to air quality at the project site or in the study area. 2. Alternative B: Proposed Action - Vail Meadows Site During construction, there could be a slight increase in fugitive dust and diesel exhaust emissions. These impacts would occur during the summer months when temperature inversions are infrequent and would be minimized and controlled in accordance with standard construction practices. Operation of the project would have no air quality impacts. 3. Alternative C: Vail Meadows Site - Lower Tank Position Changes to air quality associated with construction of a tank at a lower position at the Vail Meadows site would be virtually identical to the Proposed Action. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Page 30 Vail Meadows Water Storage Tank 4. Cumulative Effects There would be no significant cumulative impact to air quality associated with either of the three alternatives. Construction activities would result in a minor and temporary increase in PM,o resulting from diesel emissions from heavy equipment. L. Visual Resources 1. Alternative A: No Action The No Action alternative would result in no impact to visual resources at the project site or in the study area. 2. Alternative B: Proposed Action - Vail Meadows Site • The project area is visible from some residential areas in East Vail and portions of the Interstate 70 corridor, but not visible from the western portions of the Town of Vail or from the Vail Ski Area. The new storage tank would be partially buried, with the uphill side of the tank at or near the pre- existing grade. The tank would be screened from view through because it would be buried and the area would be revegetated and landscaped so as to blend the surrounding area. After revegetation of disturbed area, there would be no visual impact. • The buried tank at this location would have virtually no visual impact on the nearby neighborhoods or on the Interstate 70 corridor. 3. Alternative C: Vail Meadows Site -Lower Tank Position Changes to visual resources associated with construction of a tank at a lower position at the Vail Meadows site would be more pronounced than those resulting from the Proposed Action. This would be due to the natural grade at the Vail Meadows site which make it impossible to fully bury the tank. The north side of the tank would be fully exposed above ground. Visual impacts would be similar to those already experienced with the existing storage tank. 4. Cumulative Effects There would be no significant cumulative impact to visual resources associated with either of the three alternatives. If the existing tank is removed in the future, the Proposed Action would result in a positive impact because of the reduced visibility of the new tank. • DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Vail Meadows Water Storage Tank • M. Cultural Resources 1. Alternative A: No Action Page 31 The No Action alternative would result in no impact to cultural resources at the project site or in the study area. 2. Alternative B: Proposed Action - Vail Meadows Site As part of environmental investigations conducted in 1993 for development of a cellular communications facility site, Metcalf Archeological Consultants prepared a Class IV cultural resources inventory for an area that included the Vail Meadows storage tank site. In addition, a cultural resource inventory was conducted in conjunction with the land exchange proposed by the Town of Vail. No cultural resources were found in the project area during either of these surveys. As such, no impacts to cultural resources would occur as a result of the Proposed Action. 3. Alternative C: Vail Meadows Site - Lower Tank Position As with the Proposed Action, there would be no impact to cultural resources associated with construction of a tank at a lower position at the Vail Meadows site. 4. Cumulative Effects There would be no cumulative impact to cultural resources associated with either of the three alternatives. N. Summary of Environmental Impacts that Cannot be Avoided Permanent environmental impacts associated with the Proposed Action that cannot be avoided would include: a. reduced storage tank visibility, i.e. enhancement of visual resources; b. disturbance of 0.25 acre of grass and shrub vegetation; c. disturbance of approximately 0.05 acres of wetland vegetation; d. relocation of the drainage channel, improved stream bank stability, and reduced sediment loading to Gore Creek; e. creation of approximately 0.05 acres of wetland vegetation; and • f, reduced avalanche hazard to the District's water storage facilities. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Vail Meadows Water Storage Tank Page 32 Temporary environmental impacts that would occur during the construction phase of the Proposed Action and possibly for a short period thereafter would include: a. minor increase in diesel emissions, fugitive dust from heavy equipment; b. increase traffic and noise levels due to construction vehicles; and b. disturbance to approximately 0.78 acre of grass and shrub vegetation. O. Specific Mitigation Measures Specific precautions and mitigation measures associated with the Proposed Action will include: 1. final project design specifications that contain: a. a detailed design for stream relocation, stream bank stabilization, wetland vegetation re- establishment, and area wide revegetation with native plant species; b. an on -site erosion control plan; 2. the following mitigation measures to be implemented during the construction phase: a. measures to intercept runoff from disturbed/exposed soils; 0 b. topsoil from the construction site will be stored and used during revegetation of disturbed areas; c. if possible, wetland plants disturbed will be stored and used in addition to new planting in areas adjacent to the relocated stream channel; d. all disturbed areas will be recontoured and covered with the best available topsoil and revegetated according to a specifications to be reviewed and approved by the Forest Service; e. measures to minimize erosion during the period required for revegetation; and f. signing for safety at the construction site. c: • DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Page 33 Vail Meadows Water Storage Tank VI. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION Bill Andre, District Wildlife Manager, Colorado Division of Wildlife Russell Forrest, Town of Vail Tim' Grantham, Lands Forester, Holy Cross Ranger District, White River National Forest, Minturn, Colorado Kathy Hardy, Lands Forester, Holy Cross Ranger District, White River National Forest, Minturn, Colorado William Wood, District Ranger, Holy Cross Ranger District, White River National Forest, Minturn, Colorado VII. LIST OF PREPARERS This Environmental Assessment was prepared by the following individuals under the direction of William A. Wood, District Ranger, Holy Cross Ranger District, White River National Forest: • Robert M. Weaver, Environmental Consultant, Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, 1002 Walnut Street, Suite 200, Boulder, CO 80302 Edward J. Armbruster, Water Resources Engineer, Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, 1002 Walnut Street, Suite 200, Boulder, CO 80302 Mark Van Nostrand, Project Manager, Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, 846 Forest Road, Vail, Colorado, 81657 n U DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Page 34 Vail Meadows Water Storage Tank • V111. REFERENCES Advanced Sciences, Inc. 1990. Vail - Gore /Eagle Water Quality Monitoring Program Results. Report prepared for Vail Valley Consolidated Water District. Algermissen, S. T., et al. 1982. Probabilistic Estimates of Maximum Acceleration and Velocity in Rock in the Contiguous United States. U.S. Geological Survey„ Open File Report No. 82 -1033. Barton, Stoddard, Millhollin & Higgins. 1972. Vail Pass Environmental Study. Report for Colorado Department of Highways, Project No. I -70 -2 (19), Vail to Wheeler Junction. Brown, L. 1985. Grasslands. The Audubon Society Nature Guides. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, New York. Cattany, R. W., et al. 1986. Options to Mitigate Potential Damages from Earthflows near Dowds Junction, Colorado. Minturn Earthflows Task Force. Chen Northern, Inc. 1990. Subsoil Study for Foundation Design - Proposed Water Tank - Existing Gore Valley Water Tank Site - East Vail.. Report prepared for Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District. Colton, R.B. et al. 1975. Preliminary Map of Landslide Deposits, Leadville 1 ox2o Quadrangle, Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Field Studies, Map MF -701. Golder Associates. 1986. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Black Lake Dam 43, Vail Pass, Colorado. Report to Tipton & Kalmbach, Inc. Gooding, J. 1981. The Archaeology of Vail Pass Camp: A Multi- component Base Camp Below Tree Limit in the Southern Rockies. Colorado Department of Highways, Highway Salvage Report No. 35. Boulder, Colorado. Greystone Development Consultants, Inc. and Resource Consultants, Inc. 1991. Environmental Assessment for the US West Communications Baily to Rifle. Colorado Fiber Optic Cable Project. Halley, R.L., 1975. KAC Avalanche Study, Vail, Colorado. Halley, R.L., 1977. Vail Meadows Avalanche, Vail, Colorado. Report prepared -for Gore Vallley Water District by Hydro- Triad, Ltd. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Page 35 Vail Meadows Water Storage Tank • Hoffman, G. R., and R. R. Alexander. 1983. Forest Vegetation of the White River National Forest in Western Colorado: A Habitat Type Classification. USDA Forest Service Research Paper RM -249. Holden, P. 1986. Aquatic Biology Studies Related to the Enlargement of Black Lake No. I near Vail, Colorado. Draft Technical Report of Biowest, Inc. Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, Inc. 1991 a. Environmental Assessment for the Access Road for the Spraddle Creek Subdivision, Vail, Colorado. Boulder, Colorado. Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, Inc. 1991b. Environmental Assessment for Black Lake No. I Enlargement Project. Boulder, Colorado. Hydro - Triad, Ltd., 1990. Vail Meadows Avalanche, Bighorn, Vail, Colorado. Report prepared for GCI Environmental Developers. INSTAAR. Evaluation of the Snow Avalanche Hazard in the Valley of Gore Creek, Eagle County, Colorado. Keammerer, W. 1992. Plant Species of Special Concern for Eagle and Summit Counties. Stoeker - Keammerer. Boulder, Colorado. • Kirkham, R. M. and W. P. Rogers. 1981. Earthquake Potential in Colorado; A Preliminary Evaluation. Colorado Geological Survey, Department of Natural Resources, Bulletin 43. Mabey, M. A., and T. L. Youd. 1989. Probabilistic Liquefaction Severity Index Maps of the State of Utah. Utah Geological and Mineral Survey, Utah Department of Natural Resources. Open File Report No. 159. Mears, Art, 1976. Vail Meadows Avalanche Dynamics Study. Mears, Art, 1990. Quantitative Analysis of Runout Distance, Energy and Avalanche - Zoning Implications, Vail Meadows Avalanche, Vail, Colorado. Report Prepared for Town of Vail. Mears, Art, 1995. Snow Avalanche Loading Analysis - Proposed Water Tank - Vail Meadows Avalanche, Vail, Colorado. Report prepared for Mr. G. Schaefer, SDG, Inc. Merrick Engineering Consultants, 1994. Executive Planning Document for the Vail Valley Consolidated Water District. Prepared for the Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation District. • DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Page 36 Vail Meadows Water Storaize Tank Metcalf, M. D. 1989. A Class 1 Cultural Resource Inventory of the Vail Valley • Consolidated Water District, Eagle County, Colorado. Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Inc. Eagle, Colorado. Metcalf, M. D. 1992. WestGas Proposed Natural Gas Pipeline over Vail Pass, Wheeler Junction to Dowd Junction, Summit and Eagle Counties, Class I Cultural Resource Overview and Reconnaissance. Eagle, Colorado. Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Inc. 1990. Abbreviated Class 1 Report on the Proposed Fiber Optic Line for US West, Jeffries to Glenwood Springs. Prepared for Greystone Development. Englewood, Colorado. Mueggler, W. F., and W. L. Stewart. 1980. Grassland and Shrubland Habitat Types of Western Montana. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT -66. RBD, Inc. 1991. Preliminary Siting for the Proposed Vail Meadows Water Storage Tank. Prepared for the Vail Valley Consolidated Water District. Robinson, C. S. and D. M. Cochran. 1971. Intermediate Geologic Investigations, Big Horn Creek to Wheeler Junction, Vail Pass. Report for Colorado Department of Highways, Project No. 1-70-2 (19). Rogers, W.P. et al. 1974. Guidelines and Criteria for Identification and Land -Use • Controls of Geologic Hazard and Mineral Resource Areas, Colorado Geological Survey, Department of Natural Resources, Special Publication No. 6. Thornbury, W. D. 1965. Regional Geomorphology of the United States. John Wiley and Sons. New York, New York. Tipton and Kalmack, Inc. 1986. Various Hydrology Studies Related to Black Lakes Enlargement Project. Denver, Colorado. Town of Vail. 1986. Vail Land Use Plan. Community Development Department. Vail, Colorado. Tweto, O., R. H. Moench, and J. C. Reed Jr. 1978. Geologic Map of the Leadville 1 ox2o Quadrangle, Northeastern Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey. Miscellaneous Investigations Series, Map I -999. USDA Forest Service. 1984a. KeystonelArapahoe Keystone Mountain Expansion, Environmental Assessment. Arapahoe National Forest, Rocky Mountain Region. USDA Forest Service. 1984b. White River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Glenwood Springs, Colorado. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Page 37 Vail Meadows Water Storage Tank • USDA Forest Service. 1984c. Final Environmental Impact Statement and the Land on Resource Management Plan for the White River National Forest, Glenwood Springs, Colorado. USDOI Bureau of Reclamation. 1988. Final Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Green Mountain Reservoir, Colorado Water Marketing Program, Colorado -Big Thompson, Windy Gap Projects, Colorado. Billings, Montana. Vail Associates, Inc. 1987. Vail Master Development Plan. Prepared for the U.S. Forest Service. Minturn, Colorado. Scanlon, S. 1992. Draft Analysis of Wood - burning and Air Quality in the Vail Area. Vail Department of Community Development. Vail, Colorado. 0 o. ratan =4 x —3" —11 "1, NEC riGn MT 122 1A 0 it, HEADWALL PLAN 1-600 -922 -1967 634-6700,.= 1.0 Ma WATER STORAGE TANK SITE GRADING PL VAIL VALLEY CONSOLIDATED WATER DI 52LJ - = , R STRICT AN Z= part ac WPM ATTACHMENT D rc"D -C m min loints -1- w1mrollim Ilk ; m I OR, I IN rm iml men 1.01 mmmm I EMIR Iwo Ell I "Ellin ffimm MIN ml mine% mom mmm 0 it, HEADWALL PLAN 1-600 -922 -1967 634-6700,.= 1.0 Ma WATER STORAGE TANK SITE GRADING PL VAIL VALLEY CONSOLIDATED WATER DI 52LJ - = , R STRICT AN Z= part ac WPM ATTACHMENT D rc"D -C ,y • TO: DATE: MEMORANDUM Planning and Environmental Commission Department of Community Development December 16, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession to discuss establishing a Special Development District overlay to the Austria Haus, located at 242 East Meadow Drive/ on part of Tract C, Block 5 -D, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gordon Pierce Planner: George Ruther I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gordon Pierce, is requesting a worksession to discuss the establishment of a Special Development District at 242 East Meadow Drive /on part of Tract C, Vail Village First Filing. The applicant is proposing to establish a new Special Development District overlay to the underlying zone district of Public Accommodation, to facilitate the proposed redevelopment of the existing Austria Haus. The purpose of the worksession is to discuss the development standards proposed by the applicant. The applicant has proposed significant improvements to the existing Austria Haus property. The Austria Haus is intended to become a member owned resort club, comprised of a mix of hotel accommodation units with two and three bedroom residences and associated club facilities. The Austria Haus is intended to provide additional hotel -type accommodation units in the Town of Vail. Currently, the applicant is proposing to incorporate twenty -four (24) vacation ownership units (fractional fee units) with twenty -one (21) lock -off units, twenty (20) hotel rooms and one (1) on -site manager's unit. The applicant is also proposing approximately 5,122 sq. ft. of new commercial /retail space on the main level of the Austria Haus. The Austria Haus proposal includes a front desk reception /registration area, a lounge, an exercise room, and accessory facilities (commonly associated with hotels and lodges). In order to facilitate the proposed redevelopment of the existing Austria Haus, the applicant has also proposed other applications for review by the Planning and Environmental Commission. Those applications include a proposed text change to the Public Accommodation Zone District to add "time -share estate units, fractional fee units and time -share license units" as conditional uses (approved by the PEC on November 25, 1996) and an application for a conditional use permit to allow for fractional fee units in the Public Accommodation Zone District. Each of these applications will be reviewed concurrently with the proposed request for the establishment of a Special Development District. II. BACKGROUND The applicant's request relates to the redevelopment of the Austria Haus property. The Austria Haus was originally constructed in the mid- 1960's as an inn to accommodate destination skiers. 1 M In 1979, the Austria Haus was purchased by the Faessler family who planned to redevelop the property into the Sonnenalp Hotel. In 1984, Ordinance #8 was approved by the Vail Town Council establishing Special Development District #12. Special Development District #12 adopted an approved development plan for the redevelopment of the Austria Haus. When Ordinance # 8 was adopted, the Town Council placed an eighteen -month time limit on the approval of the SDD. The approval of SDD # 12 lapsed eleven years ago, on October 2, 1985. The approved development plan was never implemented, and instead, the Austria Haus underwent a remodel. Since the completion of the remodel, the Austria Haus has served as an annex to the Sonnenalp Bavaria Haus located at 20 Vail Road. The Austria Haus has 37 hotel rooms (accommodation units) with approximately 75 pillows" and is operated approximately eight months each year by the Sonnenalp Hotel. There is a small restaurant and bar in the Austria Haus that serves its guests and a retail outlet on the east end of the building. The hotel rooms are marginal in size ( 300 sq. ft. average) and lack certain amenities, by today's accommodation standards. The current proposal to redevelop the property intends to provide considerably more "pillows" over a twelve month period, as well as create approximately 5,122 square feet of new commercial space. The applicant has proposed that a percentage of the project be offered as fractional fee ownership units. The applicant has also proposed to accommodate a portion of the required parking in an underground parking structure. According to the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Vail, the applicant's property is currently zoned Public Accommodation. The Public Accommodation Zone District is intended to provide sites for lodges and residential accommodations for visitors, together with such public and semi- public facilities and limited professional offices, medical facilities, private recreation, and related visitor oriented uses as may be located in the same district. The Public Accommodation District • is intended to provide sites for lodging units to densities not to exceed 25 dwelling units per acre. The Public Accommodation Zone District does not currently permit time -share interval units. Interval ownership is currently allowed only in the High Density Multi - Family Zone District pursuant to Ordinance #8, Series of 1981. III. THE SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ESTABLISHMENT PROCESS Chapter 18.40 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code provides for the establishment of Special Development Districts in the Town of Vail. According to Section 18.40.010, the purpose of a Special Development District is, "To encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land, in order to promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design character and quality of the new development within the Town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; to preserve the natural and scenic features of open space areas; and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail Comprehensive Plan. An approved development plan for a Special Development District, in conjunction with the properties underlying zone district, shall establish the requirements for guiding development and uses of property included in the Special Development District." The Municipal Code provides a framework for the establishment of a Special Development Is 2 District. According to the Municipal Code, prior to site preparation, building construction, or other improvements to land within a Special Development District, there shall be an approved . development plan for the Special Development District. The approved development plan establishes requirements regulating development, uses and activity within the Special Development District. The purpose of the PEC worksession meeting is to discuss the proposed development standards and the goals of the proposed Special Development District, the relationship of the proposal to applicable elements of the Town's Comprehensive Plan, and the review procedure that will be followed for the application. Upon final review of the proposed establishment of a Special Development District, a report from the Planning and Environmental Commission stating its findings and recommendations and a staff report shall be forwarded to the Town Council, in accordance with the provisions listed in Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code. The Town Council's consideration of the Special Development District shall be in accordance with the provisions of Section 18.66.130 - 18.66.160 and approved by two readings of an ordinance. An approved development plan is the principal document in guiding the development, uses and activities of the Special Development District. The development plan shall contain all relevant material and information necessary to establish the parameters with which the Special Development District shall adhere. The development plan may consist of, but not be limited to, the approved site plan, floor plans, building sections and elevations, vicinity plan, parking plan, preliminary open space /landscape plan, densities and permitted, conditional and accessory uses. The determination of permitted, conditional and accessory uses shall be made by the Planning . and Environmental Commission and Town Council as part of the formal review of the proposed . development plan. Unless further restricted through the review of the proposed Special Development District, permitted, conditional and accessory uses shall be limited to those permitted, conditional and accessory uses in the properties underlying zone district. The Municipal Code provides nine (9) design criteria, which shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluating the merits of the proposed Special Development District. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with each of the following standards, or demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. The staff will not specifically address each of the nine SDD review criteria at this time. The staff has begun to evaluate the proposal based on several of the design criteria applicable to this worksession meeting. The design criteria are listed below for reference: A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. The applicant has submitted a revised massing model for review and discussion with the Planning and Environmental Commission. The changes to the model are based on previous meetings with the PEC and discussions with staff. At this time, staff is not prepared to respond to the massing, height and building materials of the proposed Austria Haus. 0 3 As pointed out at previous worksession meetings, the Town's urban design consultant, Jeff Winston of Winston & Associates, Inc., will be providing consultation on the proposed urban design elements, architecture and site planning proposed by the applicant. The applicant has established an escrow account with the Town of Vail to be used to reimburse the Town for the expenses associated with the consultant's review. On Thursday, December 12, a complete set of plans were forwarded to Jeff Winston in Boulder. Staff has requested that Jeff respond to staff, in writing, no later than Tuesday, January 7, 1997, and that he attend the next scheduled worksession on January 13, 1997. B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. The Austria Haus is located immediately adjacent to the Vail Village Commercial Core area. The Austria Haus is bound on the east by the Mountain Haus, on the west by the Village Center Buildings and on the south by the Covered Bridge Building and the Gasthof Gramshammer. Each of these buildings is a mixed -use development incorporating commercial /retail space with residential and /or accommodation units and associated loading /delivery. The applicant has proposed a mixed -use development that is generally in compliance with the uses permitted in the underlying zone district. The underlying zoning of Public Accommodation encourages the development of lodges (accommodation units) and accessory eating, drinking and retail establishments at a density of twenty -five (25) dwelling units per acre. The applicant is proposing to redevelopment the Austria Haus at a density of 34.33 dwelling units per acre (37,906 sq. ft of GRFA) with 5,122 sq. ft of commercial /retail space on the street level of the building. Included within the density figure are twenty -four (24) vacation ownership units (fractional fee), twenty (20) hotel rooms (accommodation units) and one (1) manager's unit (Type III employee housing is unit). Staff recognizes that the applicant's proposal differs greatly from the existing use of the property. Currently, the Austria Haus includes thirty -seven (37) accommodation units, equaling eighteen and one -half (18.5) dwelling units, a restaurant and a limited amount of commercial /retail space on the east end of the building. Parking at the Austria Haus is accommodated by a thirty (30) space surface parking lot and an informal loading /delivery /trash area on the west end of the building. Staff does not believe that the density and uses being proposed by the applicant conflicts with the compatibility, efficiency or workability of the surrounding uses and /or activities. C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18.52. of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. Parking and loading requirements for development are established in Chapter 18.52 of the Municipal Code based on the square footage of the uses proposed within the building. According to the uses proposed by the applicant, 73.86 parking spaces and one (1) loading /delivery berth are required on -site. The Municipal Code allows "g randfathe ring" of the existing parking spaces on -site. Currently, approximately thirty (30) parking spaces exist on the property. Therefore, the parking requirement for the proposed Austria Haus 4 0 • redevelopment would be 43.86 new parking spaces. The applicant is proposing an underground parking structure designed to accommodate forty -eight (48) (25 valet spaces & 23 regular spaces) parking spaces and an enclosed trash facility. If additional spaces are required due to changes in the use of the building, the applicant is proposing to meet the additional parking requirement by paying into the Town of Vail Parking Fund. Parking spaces are currently valued at $16,333.38. The cost per parking space will increase on January 1, 1997 as the figure is adjusted based on the Consumer Price Index. The applicant is proposing one (1) loading /delivery berth in the front entry drop -off area located on the north side of the building, adjacent to East Meadow Drive. Much of the drop -off area is within Town of Vail right -of -way. Staff recognizes that this area is conveniently located near the entrances to the front desk and the commercial /retail shop entrances, however, we feel that the use of the drop -off area would be compromised by the loading and delivery of goods. In staff's opinion, the front entry drop -off area should be used by the guests of the Austria Haus. Staff believes that trying to accommodate loading and delivery in this area will result in numerous conflicts between guests and vehicles accessing the parking structure, and delivery trucks. Staff would recommend that the applicant revisit the ability of providing the loading and delivery facility in the underground parking structure, as previously proposed. D. Conformity with the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plan. Vail Land Use Plan The goals contained in the Vail Land Use Plan are to be used as the Town's policy guidelines during the review process of establishing a new Special Development District. Staff has reviewed the Vail Land Use Plan and believes the following policies are relevant to the review of this proposal: 1. General Growth /Development 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.2 The quality of the environment including air, water, and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgrade whenever possible. 1.4 The original theme of the old Village Core should be carried into new development in the Village Core through continued implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill). 1.13 Vail recognizes its stream tract as being a desirable land feature as well as its potential for public use. 5 3. Commercial 3.1 The hotel bed base should be preserved and used more efficiently. 3.2 The Village and Lionshead are the best location for hotels to serve the future needs of the destination skier. 3.4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas to accommodate both local and visitor needs. 4. Village Core / Lionshead 4.1 Future commercial development should continue to occur primarily in existing commercial areas. Future commercial development in the Core areas needs to be carefully controlled to facilitate access and delivery. 4.2 Increased density in the Core areas is acceptable so long as the existing character of each area is preserved through the implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan. I Residential 5.1 Quality timeshare units should be accommodated to help keep occupancy rates up. Overall, the staff believes the proposed establishment of the new Special Development District is in concert with the goals and policies of the Vail Land Use Plan as outlined above. Vail Village Master Plan The Vail Village Master Plan is intended to serve as a guide to the staff, review boards and Town Council in analyzing future proposals for development in Vail Village and in legislating effective ordinances to deal with the such development. The staff has identified the following goals, objectives and policies as being relevant to this proposal: Goal #1 Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of community and identity. 1.1 Objective: Implement a consistent Development Review Process to reinforce the character of the Village. 1.1.1 Policy: Development and improvement projects approved in the Village shall be consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and design considerations as outlined in the Vail Village Master Plan and Urban Design Guide Plan. 1.2 Objective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. • • • I 1.2.1 Policy: Additional development may be allowed as identified by the action plan as is consistent with the • Vail Village Master Plan and Urban Design Guide Plan. 1.3 Objective: Enhance new development and redevelopment through public improvements done by private developers working in cooperation with the Town. 1.3.1 Policy: Public improvements shall be developed with the participation of the private sector working with the Town. Goal #2 To foster a strong tourist industry and promote year -round economic health and viability for the Village and for the community as a whole. 2.1 Objective: Recognize the variety of land uses found in the 10 sub- areas throughout the Village and allow for development that is compatible with these established land use patterns. 2.3 Objective: Increase the number of residential units available for short - term, overnight accommodations. 2.3.1 Policy: The development of short-term accommodation units is strongly encouraged. Residential units that are developed above existing density levels are required to be designed or managed in a manner that makes them available for short-term overnight rental. 2.4 Objective: Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial activity where compatible with existing land uses. 2.5 Objective: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. 2.5.1 Policy: Recreation amenities, common areas, meeting facilities and other amenities shall be preserved and enhanced as a part of any redevelopment of lodging properties. 2.6 Objective: Encourage the development of affordable housing units through the efforts of the private sector. 2.6.1 Policy: Employee housing units may be required as part of any new or redeveloped project requesting density over that allowed by existing zoning. Goal #3 To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village. • 3.1 Objective: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. 7 3. 1.1 Policy: Private development projects shall incorporate streetscape improvements (such as paver treatments, landscaping, lighting and seating areas), along adjacent pedestrian ways. 3.1.2 Policy: Public art shall be encouraged at appropriate locations throughout the Town. 3.1.3 Policy: Flowers, trees, water features and other landscaping shall be encouraged throughout the Town in locations adjacent to, or visible from, public areas. 3.2 Objective: Minimize the amount of vehicular traffic in the Village to the greatest extent possible. 3.2.1 Policy: Vehicular traffic will be eliminated or reduced to absolutely minimal necessary levels in the pedestrianized areas of the Village. 3.4 Objective: Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian -only walkways and accessible green space areas, including pocket parks and stream access. 3.4.2 Policy: Private development projects shall be required to incorporate new sidewalks along streets adjacent to the project as designated in the Vail Village Master Plan and /or Recreation Trails Master Plan. Goal #4 To preserve existing open space areas and expand green space opportunities. 4.1 Objective: Improve existing open space areas and create new plazas with green space and pocket parks. Recognize the different roles of each type of open space in forming the overall fabric of the Village. 4.1.4 Policy: Open space improvements, including the addition of accessible green space as described or graphically shown in the Vail Village Master Plan and /or Urban Design Guide Plan, will be required in conjunction with private infill or redevelopment projects. Goal #5 Increase and improve the capacity, efficiency and aesthetics of the transportation and circulation system throughout the Village. 5.1 Objective: Meet parking demands with public and private parking facilities. 5.1.1 Policy For new development that is located outside of the • 0 40 Commercial Core 1 Zone District, on -site parking shall be provided (rather than paying into the • parking fund) to meet any additional parking demand as required by the Zoning Code. 5.1.5 Policy Redevelopment projects shall be strongly encouraged to provide underground or visually concealed parking. Goal #6 To insure the continued improvement of the vital operational elements of the Village. 6.1 Objective: Provide service and delivery facilities for existing and new development. Vail Village Master Plan and Building Height Plan Generally speaking, it is the goal of the Building Height Plan to maintain the concentration of low -scale buildings in the Core area, while positioning larger buildings along the northern periphery. According to the Conceptual Building Height Plan contained within the Vail Village Master Plan, the Austria Haus is located within an area proposed to have building heights of a maximum range of three to four stories. A building story is defined as 9' of height, not including the roof. Vail Village Master Plan Action Plan According to the Action Plan, illustrated in the Vail Village Master Plan, the Austria Haus property is an area intended for residential /lodging infill along the south side of the property and commercial infill along the north side of the property. According to the Vail Village Master Plan, the Austria Haus property is located within mixed -use sub -area #1 -8, Sonnenalp (Austria Haus) /Slifer Square: "Commercial infill along East Meadow Drive to provide a stronger edge to street and commercial activity generators to reinforce the pedestrian loop throughout the Village. Focus of infill is to provide improvements to pedestrian circulation with separated walkway including buffer, along East Meadow Drive. Accommodating on -site parking and maintaining the bus route along East Meadow Drive are two significant constraints that must be addressed. One additional floor of residential/lodging may also be accommodated on this site. Specific emphasis should be placed on the following Vail Village Master Plan objectives: 2.3, 2.4, 2.6 ,3.1,3.2,3.3,3.4,4.1,5.1,6.1." Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. The proposal will not be evaluated for conformance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan at this time. Staff will be evaluating this criteria with Jeff Winston, our Urban Design Consultant, and we will be providing a written report of the review at a future PEC meeting. E. Identification and mitigation of natural and /or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. 0 Staff will not be evaluating the above - described criteria at this time. Z F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. The applicant has revised the proposed site plan in response to comments received from the Planning and Environmental Commission and staff during previous worksession meetings. Most importantly, the applicant has shifted the building on the site to further buffer the surrounding properties. The applicant has designed the building to respect the fifty -foot (50') Gore Creek Stream setback along the south side of the property and is now maintaining the required twenty -foot (20') setback along the west property line. G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off -site traffic circulation. Staff will not be evaluating the above - described criteria at this time. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. Staff will not be evaluating the above - described criteria at this time. I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. Staff will not be evaluating the above - described criteria at this time. IV. ZONING ANALYSIS The development standards for a Special Development District shall be proposed by the applicant. Development standards including lot area, site dimensions, setbacks, height, density control, site coverage, landscaping and parking and loading shall be determined by the Town Council as part of the approved development plan, with consideration of the recommendations of the Planning and Environmental Commission and staff. Before the Town Council approves development standards that deviate from the underlying zone district, it shall be determined that such deviations provide benefits to the Town that outweigh the adverse effects of such deviations. This determination is to be made based upon the evaluation of the proposed Special Development District's compliance with the Review Criteria outlined in the section above. The Community Development Department staff has prepared a Zoning Analysis for the proposed Austria Haus redevelopment based on the revised plans submitted by the applicant on December 11, 1996. The Zoning Analysis compares the development standards outlined by the underlying zone district of Public Accommodation, to the proposed Special Development District. For comparative purposes only, and at the request of the Planning and Environmental Commission, staff has included the approved development standards of Special Development District # 30, as amended, the Vail Athletic Club. Wherever the proposed development deviates from the underlying zoning of Public Accommodation, the standards are highlighted in bold type. • 10 • • AUSTRIA HAUS Legal: 242 East Meadow Drive /Part of Tract C, Block 5D, Vail Village First Filing Lot size: 24,089 sq. ft. /0.553 acres Buidable area: 24,089 sq. ft. /0.553 acres Development Standard Underlying Zoning of Public Accommodation Ordinance #8 (SDD #12 -1984) Proposed SDD as of 12/11/96 Amount of Deviation (Proposed vs. Allowable) GRFA: 8010 or 19,271 sq. ft. 118% or 28,591 sq. ft. 157% or 37,906 sq. ft. 197% Dwelling -15% was to be submitted units per acre: 13.8 DU's 34.5 DU's 34.33 DU's (24 DU's, 249% Loading In (2 DU's & 65 AU's) 20 AU's, 1 Type III EHU) 36% or Site coverage: 55% or 13,249 sq. ft. 71% or 71% or 17,200 sq. ft. 130% N/A 39% or 14,549 sq. ft. 17,103 sq. ft. Setbacks: front: 20' N/A 0.5' 19.5' sides: 20' N/A 5'120' 151/0' rear: 20' N/A 7' 13' Height: 48' sloping N/A 48' flat 3' 45' flat Parking: per T.O.V. code Section 18.52 5 short-term 25 valet spaces N/A Landscaping: 30% or 7,227 sq. ft. Loading: per T.O.V. code Section 18.52 Commercial sq. footage: 100% or 1,927 sq. ft. Common area: 35% of allowable GRFA or 6,745 sq. ft. spaces on -site 23 regular spaces 71 parking spaces pay -in -lieu A detailed plan 25% or 6,122 sq. ft. -15% was to be submitted for DRB approval 1 berth 1 berth at drop -off area Loading In right -of -way 36% or 14% or 5,122 sq. ft. 266% 11,555 sq. ft. N/A 39% or 14,549 sq. ft. 216% Vail Athletic Club Legal: 352 East Meadow Drive /Part of Tract C, Vail Village First Filing Lot Size: 30,486 square feet/0.699 acre 11 Buildable: 30,486 square feet/0.699 acre IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Since this is a worksession to discuss the proposed establishment of a Special Development District to the property located at 242 East Meadow Drive /part of Tract C, Block 5 -D, Vail Village First Filing, and not a request for a formal recommendation from the Planning and Environmental Commission to the Town Council, staff will not be providing a recommendation at this time. Staff will, however, provide a recommendation on the applicant's proposal at the time of final review. • 12 • Development Underlying Zoning Special Development Amount of Standard of Public Accommodation District #30 Approval Deviation GRFA: 800% or 24,388 sq. ft. 113% or 34,505 sq. ft. 141% Dwelling units per acre: 17.5 DU's 33 DU's (4 DU's, 188% 55AU's, 4 Type IV EHU's) Site coverage: 55% or 16,767 sq. ft. 70% or 127% 21,350 sq. ft. Setbacks: front: 20' 0' 20' sides: 20' 12'112' 8118' rear: 20' 2' 18' Height: 48' sloping 67' 19' over Parking: per T.O.V. code section 18.52 29 valet spaces 58 space (87 spaces) deficit (grandfathered) Landscaping: 30% or 9,145 sq. ft. 32% or 9,730 sq. ft. +6% Loading: per T.O.V. code section 18.52 N/A - - - - -- Commercial sq. footage: 10% or 3,049 sq. ft. 13% or 4,066 sq. ft. 133% Common area: 35% of allowable GRFA or 8,536 sq. ft. 44% or 15,054 sq. ft. 176% IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Since this is a worksession to discuss the proposed establishment of a Special Development District to the property located at 242 East Meadow Drive /part of Tract C, Block 5 -D, Vail Village First Filing, and not a request for a formal recommendation from the Planning and Environmental Commission to the Town Council, staff will not be providing a recommendation at this time. Staff will, however, provide a recommendation on the applicant's proposal at the time of final review. • 12 1% / l� 1`\ O r�� .Pk., Swrbwg a ArobitKin MAU w -140r N I Pic". syKen r ,.omi.n, PL -W 1 t i 4 i 3 i Z I.I I m 39 A-ld- �. ps ftftbF t%_ r, %,GARACE_LEVEL FLOOR PLAN A2.0 o-_ l.1 _wmv .WOOS. � I I 3 3 3 0 0 I B 9 I ' ' I I I I I / u uurr stasese �---1 Plarce. 9yr6wr k . kaoala krahkwu P4M -LLLL NV i� fo .I 5 4 3 2 I.t I r.rr Otla Va M IF P%M W OWl M� YM k ,42.5 Ask i I • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 16, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to allow for an addition and remodel to the Town of Vail Public Works Administration Building and a remodel to the Transportation and Fleet Maintenance Buildings, located at 1309 Vail Valley Drive /on an unplatted tract, located north of Vail Village, Eighth Filing. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Andy Knudtsen On August 14, 1995, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a conditional use permit to allow for the addition and remodel of the Public Works Administration Building and a remodel to the Transportation and Fleet Maintenance Buildings. (See the attached PEC memo dated August 14, 1995 for additional information.) One of the conditions of approval the PEC placed on the project required that the applicant secure a building permit for a minimum of three employee housing units to be located on the Public Works site prior to requesting a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for Phase II. (See letter to Mr. Larry Grafel dated August 15, 1995.) Since the initial condition requiring the three dwelling units, staff has evaluated the potential of the site and believes it can accommodate a larger number of employee housing units. Given that the scope of the work has grown since the initial concept, the time to complete the effort has also increased. The Town will be sending out a Request for Qualifications for a design and construction team in the very near future. The team will design and construct the housing, which is scheduled to be available for occupancy in the fall of 1997. Staff is requesting that the PEC modify the condition of approval, extending the date to secure a building permit for the employee housing units until July 31, 1997. F:everyone\PEGlmemosVubwks.d 16 �J �_ J f�J • TOWW 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 970- 479 - 21381479 -2139 FAX 970 -479 -2452 August 15, 1995 Mr. Larry Grafel Director of Public Works Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 r FILE COPY Department of Community Development RE: Conditional Use Approval for Phases I and II of the Public Works site. Dear Larry: On August 14, 1995, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved the requested Conditional Use with the conditions listed below. The items shown in italics are the conditions that were added at the PEG hearing. 1. Prior to review by the Design Review Board, the applicant shall: A. Amend the landscape plan adding sufficient spruce and aspen to the snow dump section of the berm to create a gradual transition from the older section of the berm to the newer section. DRB shall determine if the landscape plan is sufficient to create a successful transition; B. Provide a map of the proposed debris flow grading at 1:50 scale; C. Provide details of all proposed lighting fixtures; D. Provide a design of a sign to be installed as part of Phase 1. 2. Prior to application for a building permit, the applicant shall: A. Provide an updated analysis of the hazard mitigation rt Mears, specifying that the propased plans �Lwith tba.Town ot.�i!!�a ecifuiiiiiiiiiiiweater rJaLail to 3. Prior to requesting a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for Phase 11, the applicant shall secure a building permit for a minimum of three employee housing units to be located on the Public Works site. Attached to M!l,Rrr iM!N!Cr o e an n gusZ'R�9�sMINOM it in detail, as there are descriptions regarding specific requirements pertaining to details of the site, such as lighting, parking, fuel tanks, etc. Thank you for your cooperation in the review of this proposal. I look forward to working with you and the rest of the Public Works staff on the implementation of Phases I and 11, as well as the development of the housing component. As the PEG mentioned, this site provides an excellent location for seasonal worker housing, and we look forward to working with you in providing a solution to this problem. Sincerely, 4X Andy Knudts Senor Planner AKrr cc: Susan Connelly Bob McLaurin �� RECYMEDPAPER Since the PEC worksession on July 10, 1995, staff has reviewed the items that were raised by the PEC. Of all of the issues which were identified, staff believes that there are two significant issues. These include employee housing and adequate landscaping. Staff's analysis of all the issues is provided below. III. REVIEW CRITERIA: A. Consideration of Factors: • A& The purpose section of the Conditional Use section of the zoning code, Section 18.60.010, states that: "Because of their unusual or special characteristics, conditional uses require review and evaluation so that they may be located properly with respect to the purposes of this title and with respect the their effects on surrounding properties." The purpose section of the General Use District of the zoning code, Section 18.36.010, states that: "The General Use District is intended to provide sites for public and quasi- public uses... and is intended to ensure that pubic buildings and grounds • and certain types of quasi - public uses permitted in the District are appropriately located and designed to meet the needs of residents and visitors to Vail, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and, in the case of buildings and other structures, to ensure adequate light, air open spaces and other amenities appropriate with the permitted types of uses." Staff believes that the expansions to the Public Works facilities are consistent with the goals of these purpose sections of the zoning code. The buildings on the site are public facilities and contribute to the Town's effort to meet the needs of residents and visitors to Vail. schools 2. Effect of the use on light and di on of nSDortation facilities utilities, parks.an r i •1 • • • • facilities. Staff believes that the proposed improvements will have positive effects on the criteria listed above. In particular, the proposal will have a positive affect on the transportation facilities of the community. 3. Effect affic upon tr with o_ articular reference to congeston, automotive nd pedestriao safety and convenience traffic flow and contrn1 access ., a_ maneuverability and removal of snow from the Streets and parking area 2 Guest parking • Staff believes that the aspects of the proposed expansion that relate most closely to the criteria above involve traffic flow and parking supply on this property. The consultants for the Town of Vail provided an analysis of the demand for visitor parking spaces (see Exhibit A, memo from Chris Hedberg, dated August 1, 1995). Staff believes that the five new visitor parking spaces are appropriately located and will adequately provide for the demands of the Administration Building. One detail that has been successfully addressed is the configuration of the entrance to the handicapped parking space. The plan shows that there will be greater definition to this access way than the current situation. The plan calls for landscape areas on either side of the access way which will delineate it from the rest of the parking area. Staff believes the improvements to details such as these will increase the aesthetic quality of the site. Landscaping Staff believes that one of the most significant issues regarding this proposal is screening the site from surrounding uses. Specifically, staff believes that the berm between the Interstate and the Public Works site should be heavily planted. This berm has been planted with spruce in the past and at this time Pubic Works will be augmenting the existing landscaping with the following: • *29 - 6' tall Spruce; *82 - 7 gallon Aspen; *82 -10 gallon Aspen; *48 - 5 gallon Serviceberry; and *23 - 5 gallon Sage; • Staff believes that the additional spruce, aspen and shrubs will add variety and result in a high quality appearance. In staff's opinion, the landscaping on the berm adjacent to the snow dump needs to be increased. Staff understands that there is no need to screen buildings or equipment, as there is in the other portions of the site; however, the landscape transition from the existing berm to the snow dump portion does not work well. Staff believes that the 29 additional spruce should be added to the snow dump portion of the berm to create a smooth transition. The amount of landscaping around the Administration Building is excellent, in staff's opinion. The planter box areas will increase by 260 sq.ft. Once the proposed plan is implemented, staff believes that the site will be sufficiently planted. Other Conditional Use requests in the future should not be required to add landscaping, as the amount reflected in these drawings is adequate (assuming the transition along the snow dump can be improved). 3 Lighting Staff worked with Jennifer Decker, an architect with Morter Architects, and drove . the neighborhoods around the Public Works site in the evening to identify the lights that create glare from the Public Works site. A lighting plan has been provided which addresses all of the fixtures that generate glare. Some of the proposed solutions to the glare problem include eliminating three Town and Country lights and replacing them with fully cut -off fixtures, replacing the existing soffit lights with can lights and eliminating the wall pack fixtures on the bus wash (when the bus wash facility is removed). Staff believes that the lighting plan has been thoroughly addressed and will significantly improve the appearance of the site from adjacent properties. Details Some of the specific details that have been mentioned by the Planning and Environmental Commission in the past include signage on the Frontage Road and unifying the roof treatments. The applicant is proposing a sign as part of Phase II. This will be reviewed by the DRB. Concerning the roofs, the applicant has stated that all additions to the fleet building will be designed to match the existing built -up roof form. The material of the roof will not be changed at this time. In the future, Public Works will be making the roof materials consistent, as maintenance is needed. The roof over the Administration Building is proposed to be a standing seam, green metal roof. This is significantly different than the other roof material; however, staff believes that differentiating the Administration Building from the shops building is appropriate. 5. Other factors as the Commission deems RnliCahip tr, rhep�Qposed use. • At the PEC worksession, there was extensive discussion about safety issues and employee housing issues. Staff believes that they most appropriately fall under this criteria. Housing Concerning housing, Public Works is not proposing to add any additional employees as a result of the proposed addition and remodel, and therefore, cannot be required to provide employee housing as a condition of the Conditional Use Permit approval. Three employee housing units were specified in the original phasing plan, as detailed in the 1 993 Master Plan approved by the PEC and Council in 1994. These three units were to be completed as part of Phase I or Phase II. At this time, Public Works has designated an area on the eastern portion of the site that could accommodate up to twelve employee housing units (900 sq. ft. each) or up to 10,800 sq. ft. of employee housing. Public Works is committing the use of the land and will rely on others to create the product. Staff believes that it is important to keep both the. expansions to the Public Works facilities and the proposal for housing moving. Staff believes that the Public Works site is an excellent location for housing for seasonal workers and has discussed this concept with the Director of Public Works. He has committed the resources of the land to this effort. Staff is confident that a successful housing . development can be created here. However, the time required to analyze the 4 options and determine the best solution is significant. In order to keep the Public Works projects on schedule, staff believes it would be most appropriate to • approve the requested Conditional Use with the understanding that the Town of Vail staff will work, in conjunction with consultants as needed, to create housing at this location or an equivalent elsewhere. Hazards The first safety issue deals with the rockfall and debris flow hazard. The architect and the consulting engineer have redesigned the proposed debris flow channels in such a way as to reduce the amount of hillside disturbance. No existing trees will be affected. All regrading will occur on the Public Works site. Art Mears, the To hazard analyst, is presently out of the country and was unable to review the drawings. Staff would recommend that prior to issuance of any building permits for the proposed improvements, that an updated analysis by Art Mears be completed verifying that the proposed design is sufficient. If any significant changes are required, a return to the PEC will be required. Staff believes that in addition to looking at the amount of disturbance to the hillside, other issues for Mr. Mears' analysis include identifying the location where the debris flow will stop, how it will be contained, and how much of the Public Works site may be covered. A debris flow map at a scale of 1" - 50" must be submitted prior to final DRB review to fully to understand the impacts. Underground fuel tanks Another safety issue involves the new location for the underground gas and diesel fuel tanks. There was some debate as to whether these should be located above or below ground. The applicant has researched the codes and provided an analysis in the memo attached as Exhibit A. In brief, underground tanks will meet • all standards and will actually be safer if located below ground. Because the debris flow channels are in the vicinity and because there is significant truck traffic around the tanks, Public Works believes that locating them underground will reduce the risk to the tanks. • B. Findinas The Plannina and Environmental Commis ion shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit: That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. 5 IV. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use request. We believe that the • proposal meets the criteria, as addressed above, as well as the findings. Specifically, Finding 131 is met, in staff's opinion, as the proposed use is in accordance with the purposes of the zoning code and the General Use Zone District. Finding B2 is'met as the proposed location of the use will not be detrimental to the pubic health, safety, or welfare. Finally, Finding B3 is met as the use will comply with all of the applicable provisions of the zoning code. Therefore, staff recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. Prior to review by the Design Review Board, the applicant shall: a) Amend the landscape plan, adding sufficient spruce and aspen to the snow dump section of the berm to create a gradual transition from the older section of the berm to the newer section. DRB shall determine if the landscape plan is sufficient to create a successful transition; b) Provide a map of the proposed debris flow grading at a 1:50 scale; C) Provide details of all proposed lighting fixtures. 2. Prior to application for a building permit, the applicant shall: a) Provide an updated analysis of the hazard mitigation by Art Mears, specifying that the proposed plans comply with the TOV standards and specifying greater detail to cover the questions listed in the memo above. • • fkveryoee�peclmeoboalptbticwka .814 Exhibit, memo from Chris Hedberg dated 8/1/95 6 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 16, 1996 RE: A request to amend Sections 18.27.030, 18.29.030, and 18.30.030 of the Zoning Code to allow van storage /transportation related businesses in the Commercial Core 3, Arterial Business, and Heavy Service Zone Districts as a conditional use and add Sections 18.04.415 and 18.04.385 providing definitions for vehicle storage yard and transportation business. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Dominic Mauriello DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST On October 28, 1996, the PEC directed staff to develop an amendment to the Zoning Code regulating van shuttle services and car rental businesses as a conditional use, located in the CC3 zone district. Staff has developed a proposal to amend the Zoning Code to allow these uses. The proposed amendment allows "transportation businesses" (van shuttle services and car rental establishments) as a conditional use in the Commercial Core 3 (CC3), Arterial Business (ABD), • and Heavy Service (HS) zone districts. Staff is proposing 4 additional review criteria for such uses (see proposed text changes). The proposal also provides a definition for "transportation business" and "vehicle storage yard." In review of the proposed amendment, staff looked at all of the commercial zone districts to see if these businesses could be a compatible use with other uses allowed in the districts. The Heavy Service zone district currently allows a "vehicle storage yard" as a conditional use. However, the code fails to define a vehicle storage yard. Staff believes that the impacts of a vehicle storage yard are similar to that of a transportation business and therefore is proposing that in the HS zone district, vehicle storage yards be subject to the same criteria as a transportation business. It. BACKGROUND The Zoning Code currently does not specifically address businesses such as Vans to Vail or Colorado Mountain Express, which are commercial enterprises providing van transportation within and out of the valley. These businesses have numerous vans (10 - 50) as part of their operation. This issue arose out of a code violation at the West Vail Lodge, which had leased a portion of the parking lot to a transportation business and was storing 8 to 10 vans on this property (zoned CC3). The operator of the van business was not licensed to operate on the site. • When Chapter 18.52, Off - Street Parking and Loading, was originally adopted, this type of use was not contemplated, nor did the use exist. The problem is where to draw the line. How many vans can be parked in a commercial district • before they start to have a deleterious effect on the neighborhood? The staff's proposal will allow the PEC to determine, on a case -by -case basis (based on the criteria proposed), how many' vehicles are appropriate for a proposed site. Many communities across the country regulate the number of vehicles that are permitted to be stored on a commercial site due to the negative impacts such a use can have. This type of storage can have negative impacts on neighboring commercial and residential uses as they are generally unattractive, create clutter, and create the appearance of "greater intensity" of development. They also utilize parking areas which may not have been required /allocated for such a use. Staff believes that these uses can be appropriately regulated via the conditional use process, subject to the proposed review criteria. 111. CONFORMITY WITH THE TOWN'S RELEVANT PLANNING DOCUMENTS In considering the proposed amendment to the Zoning Code, staff relied on several relevant planning documents before making a recommendation. Specifically, staff reviewed the purpose sections of the CC3, ABD, and HS zone districts and the goals and objectives stated in the Vail Land Use Plan. Zoning _Code According to the purpose statements of these commercial zone districts, these zone districts are • intended to provide sites for commercial establishments which are compatible with other uses in the district. Vail Land Use Plan The following goals found in the Vail Land Use Plan support this proposal: 1.3 The quality of the environment should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 2.2 The ski area owner, the business community and the Town leaders should work together closely to make existing facilities and the Town function more efficiently. IV. PROPOSED TEXT CHANGES DEFINITIONS: 18.04.415 Vehicle storage yard "Vehicle storage yard" means an area where vehicles are temporarily parked while awaiting repair or deposition. Vehicles stored in a vehicle storage yard must be licensed vehicles, and no one vehicle may remain in such a storage yard for more than one hundred twenty (120) consecutive or non - consecutive days in a one year period. A vehicle storage yard does not include the removal and sale of vehicle parts or other accessories. 2 0 18.04.385 Transportation business "Transportation business" means a business which provides transportation for persons in the. 16 form of a shuttle service (e.g., van transportation) or by providing automobiles for customers (e.g., car rental). Transportation businesses do not include businesses providing vehicles for the transportation of goods or products including, but not limited to, panel trucks, moving vans and trucks, and other similar vehicles. ZONE DISTRICTS: Commercial Core 3 18.27.030 Conditional uses Q. Transportation businesses, subject to the following conditions (in addition to those found in Section 18.60 "Conditional Use Permits "): 1. All vehicles shall be parked upon approved paved parking areas; 2. All vehicles shall be adequately screened from public rights -of -way and adjacent properties. Screening shall consist of landscaping and berms, in combination with walls and fences, where deemed necessary to reduce the deleterious effects of vehicle storage; 3. The number, size and location of vehicles shall be determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission based on the adequacy of the site for vehicle storage. Consideration shall be given to the adequacy of landscaping and other • screening methods to prevent impacts to adjacent properties and other commercial and /or residential uses; 4. Parking associated with transportation businesses shall not reduce or compromise the parking required for other uses on -site. Arterial Business 18.29.030 Conditional Uses A. Add the following: Transportation businesses, subject to the following conditions (in addition to those found in Section 18.60 "Conditional Use Permits "): All vehicles shall be parked upon approved paved parking areas; 2. All vehicles shall be adequately screened from public rights -of -way and adjacent properties. Screening shall consist of landscaping and berms, in combination with walls and fences, where deemed necessary to reduce the deleterious effects of vehicle storage; 3. The number, size and location of vehicles shall be determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission based on the adequacy of the site for vehicle storage. Consideration shall be given to the adequacy of landscaping and other screening methods to prevent impacts to adjacent properties and other commercial and /or residential uses; 4. Parking associated with transportation businesses shall not reduce or compromise the parking required for other uses on -site. Heavy Service 18.30.030 Conditional Uses • O. Transportation businesses and vehicle storage yards, subject to the following conditions (in addition to those found in Section 18.60 "Conditional Use Permits "): 1. All vehicles shall be parked upon approved paved parking areas; 2. All vehicles shall be adequately screened from public rights -of -way and adjacent properties. Screening shall consist of landscaping and berms, in combination with walls and fences, where deemed necessary to reduce the deleterious effects of vehicle storage; 3. The number, size and location of vehicles shall be determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission based on the adequacy of the site for vehicle storage. Consideration shall be given to the adequacy of landscaping and other screening methods to prevent impacts to adjacent properties and other commercial and /or residential uses; 4. Parking associated with transportation businesses and vehicle storage yards shall not reduce or compromise the parking required for other uses on -site. 4 0 V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the PEC recommend approval of the proposed amendments to the Zoning Code to the Town Council to allow "transportation businesses" as a conditional use in the CC3, ABD, and HS zone districts. Staff recommends that the PEC make the finding that adding this conditional use, with the additional review criteria, to those uses listed in the CC3, ABD, and HS zone districts, will continue to ensure compatibility with other uses in those zone districts, while providing an additional service to the residents and guests of the Town. fA@veryone\pec\memo\vancode.d 16 • 0 5 • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION December 16, 1996 Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: • • Greg Moffet Greg Amsden Henry Pratt Galen Aasland John Schofield Gene Uselton Diane Golden Public Hearing Diane Golden 5:45pm The meeting was called to order by Greg Moffet at 2:00 p.m. Susan Connelly Mike Mollica George Ruther Dominic Mauriello Dirk Mason Tammie Williamson Tom Moorhead Judy Rodriguez 2:00 p.m. Greg Moffet assigned the reps for the DRB Board for 1997: John Schofield for the 1 st qtr.; Gene Uselton for the 2nd qtr.; Galen Aasland for the 3rd qtr.; with yet to be determined for the 4th qtr. A request for a minor subdivision to relocate the common property line between Lots 7 and 8, located at 666 and 696 Forest Road /Lots 7 and 8, Block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing. Applicant: Neil and Nancy Austrian Planner: Lauren Waterton Lauren Waterton gave an overview of the request and stated that staff was recommending denial of the request. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. Jim Wear, the attorney for the Austrians, said that last week was the first he heard of the "no build" area. He said that 500 more sq. ft. on Lot 8 was what the applicant would gain with this request. He said that the applicants would like to preserve the value of Lot 8 and had no plans to build, but they don't want a restriction on Lot 8. He said the applicants have a smaller house on Lot 7 and have no problem with a "no build" on Lot 7, as it is in their interest to restrict that lot. He said that they would put a major restriction on Lot 7, in order for this request to be approved. Greg Moffet asked for any public comment. There was none. John Schofield asked how much GRFA was on both lots? Lauren Waterton said Lot 7 had approximately 2,500 sq. ft. that could be added and about the same for Lot 8. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes December 16, 1996 1 ° •�� f n dP+�j John Schofield asked if all changes would go to the DRB? Lauren Waterton said, yes. John Schofield asked Jim Wear the reasoning to place a "no build" on Lot 7 and not on Lot 8. Jim Wear said they want to sell Lot 7 and although, the value would be decreased, they want the restriction on that lot. He again said that the applicant had no plans for Lot 8. He said that what the applicant was being asked to do had impacted their future options, as well as the value of Lot 8. He then said the applicant's offer to the Town was reasonable for this concession. John Schofield advised that whatever the applicant proposed in the future could be turned down. Gene Uselton asked if the motivation, for the Lot 7 restriction, was for the applicant's enjoyment of open space? Jim Wear emphasized that the applicant won't be able to get as much money for Lot 7 with these restrictions. He again stated that the applicant had no plans for either lot. • Buff Arnold, the applicant's architect, stated that Lot 8 was not developed to the maximum allowed. He stated that the unit over the garage could be expanded upon. However, the applicant wanted to protect their situation on Lot 8 as it was now, but would like the option to increase the size of their house in the future. He said that the applicant might want an additional master bedroom wing on the back of the house and that they had no intention to tear down what was already there. Buff stated that the existing house was not visible from any other lot in the Town. He said that since it was built in 1978, it exceeded the height requirements, but there was • no impact on adjacent lots. He said that there were very positive reasons to restrict Lot 7. Gene Uselton asked if the applicant would want the maximum footprint, rather than a "no build" restriction as an alternative? Buff Arnold said that would be a possibility, but he felt that the Town was overreaching with the restrictions on Lot 8. Gene Uselton stated that the PEC had to make their decisions according to Code. Buff Arnold stated that he just disagreed with staff. He stated that a 6,000 sq. ft. duplex could be built on this lot, but the least impact would be to add on. He said to develop up the hill, a 6,000 sq. ft. eyesore would prevail. He said the applicant was conscientiously trying to restrict the development on Lot 7 and that the applicant felt strongly that that was appropriate Greg Amsden was not in favor of a "no build" area, but rather a building envelope that would allow for a reasonable addition. He was skeptical about resubdividing the land, as it would open up the possibility for a house to be built up the hill. The big bench could be used in the future. Buff Arnold said the bench was mainly on Lot 7. He said that the entire buildable area on Lot 7 would remain on Lot 7. He said that the Town could not protect Lot 7 from the house being torn down and in ten years a large structure being built on the hill. He said that a complete tear -down on Lot 8 would not be significantly more visible than it was now. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes • December 16, 1996 2 . Greg Amsden suggested creating a bigger envelope than staff's proposal. Greg Moffet advised the applicant to propose a building envelope. Mike Mollica said a building envelope proposed by the applicant would be looked at. Jim Wear stated that the applicant already proposed one. Mike Mollica stated that the one proposed was not acceptable to the staff. Jim Wear said the applicant was only getting an additional 500 sq. ft. and the Town was getting open space. Greg Amsden said that the PEC had not seen a proposed building envelope or footprint. He said that he didn't object to going up the hillside, but he objected to it going up to the ski slope. Mike Mollica said Exhibit B showed an extension to the west which created a buildable area that staff believed was too large, as it went up 208' beyond the front property line. Mike went on to explain the drawing which showed what the applicant was proposing and he explained the existing improvements. Greg Amsden suggested creating a building envelope to protect the trees. He then asked, from an architectural standpoint, how far up the hill the applicant would go. Buff Arnold said that there was no contemplation to build any farther up the hill. • Galen Aasland agreed with Greg Amsden and suggested to the applicant to come back and work with staff regarding a new envelope. Diane Golden asked if the house on Lot 7 had no more GRFA, what would Lot 8 have? Buff Arnold said using the combination of a "no build" on Lot 7 and putting the 500 sq. ft. on lot 8, it would be virtually impossible to develop. Buff Arnold said using the remaining 1,500 sq. ft. to build would be difficult. Diane Golden said part of the concern was that the house sticks up and is visible. Buff Arnold said the existing house has a height of 43'. Diane Golden agreed with Greg Amsden regarding the building area. Henry Pratt said the Town's concept of a "no build" was confusing and unenforceable. He said he would rather see a defined envelope. Greg Moffet agreed with his colleagues. He felt the subdivision process needed some sense of limitation on how far up the hill you are able to go. He said the aspen grove needed to be maintained. Greg recommended tabling this item until a blueprint could be brought back. His sense was that somewhere between what staff was recommending and 208 ft., was what the applicant should be looking at. • Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes December 16, 1996 3 Jim Wear said the applicant would like to table their item. John Schofield made a motion to table this item. Gene Uselton seconded the motion. Henry Pratt asked when the item would be tabled until. John Schofield amended his motion to table the item until the January 13, 1997 meeting, Gene Uselton seconded the amended motion. It passed unanimously by a vote of 7 -0. 2. A request for a minor subdivision to create two primary /secondary lots and a request for a variance from the 30' minimum street frontage requirement, located at 2339 Chamonix Lane/Tract A, Vail Heights, Filing 1. Applicant: Robert Hunter (AKA Schmetzko), represented by Rick Rosen Planner: George Ruther Greg Amsden recused himself from this item. George Ruther gave an overview of the request, in accordance with the staff memo. He explained that the applicant was proposing to subdivide the existing lot into two new lots. George stated that staff was recommending approval with 3 conditions listed in the staff memo. Rick Rosen, the attorney representing Robert "Doug" Hunter, stated that on Tract A, 20' of the eastern portion was to be used as a utility easement and not the whole tract. He stated that the applicant would like to keep the driveway out of the easement. He said the applicant would like to leave enough room and push the utilities out 20 ft. George Ruther said that staff was agreeable to the request. Rick Rosen said the applicant was proposing to locate a part of Lot 2 into the debris flow. He explained that it was the applicant's decision to put a note on the plat to have a study done for mitigation and that the Town would have to approve it. He said that was why we had the plat note put on the property. He then went on to show the portion of Lot 2 to the Commissioners. Greg Moffet asked for any public comment. There was none. Galen Aasland supported the request. Diane Golden agreed with Galen. Henry Pratt stated that he had no problem with the subdivision, but had a grave concern with it being in the debris flow zone. Rick Rosen asked what it would take to make Henry comfortable with the request. Henry Pratt said for the project not to be in the debris flow zone. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes December 16, 1996 4 • • Rick Rosen said one of the staff recommendations was to not extend beyond the envelope. He said the plat note was very strong and that not even a deck could encroach. Henry Pratt said we need to have a consistent envelope, but that he has seen the best engineers fail, given the history that this area has had debris flow. George Ruther said the note on the plat was consistent with the TOV zoning language. He said that development was allowed in the debris flow area, if mitigation was done properly and that this was nothing different than what was in the Code. He said that the Code allowed you to build in certain geologic hazard zones, contingent on a site specific analysis. John Schofield had no problems with the request. Gene Uselton asked if the applicant could move the envelope to the west? Rick Rosen explained, regarding safety requirements, that the applicant had to satisfy the fire truck turnaround and that it would also be a long driveway to try to heat. Gene Uselton asked if the transformers would be moved into an easement? Rick Rosen said they could be moved, if necessary. Gene Uselton said he had no problem with anything, but the debris flow. Rick Rosen asked staff if the eavelines would be included in the restriction? • George Ruther said this request was consistent with other properties. Rick Rosen said heavy Tyrolean architecture would be limited. He said that they may have an eaveline that they would just have to be cut off. George Ruther said this language was appropriate. Greg Moffet said he had no problem with the request and that he was in favor with the conditions that staff had placed on the approval. Gene Uselton made a motion in accordance with the staff memo, with the exception of the roof eaveline not being included in the envelope. There was no second to the motion. Gene Uselton amended his motion. He stated that the amended motion could damage the architectural design and he didn't see why a roofline over the envelope line was a problem. Henry Pratt explained that the motion had to be consistent with the way it was stated. Gene Uselton amended the motion to include the eaveline in the building envelope as per the staff memo. The motion was seconded by Henry Pratt as read and amended. • Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes December 16, 1996 5 Galen Aasland asked if the applicant would work with staff regarding the easements. Rick Rosen said, yes. The motion passed by a vote of 6 -0 -1. 3. A request for a side setback variance to allow for the construction of a two -car garage, located at 4532 Streamside Circle East/Lot 15, Bighorn 4th Addition. Applicant: Lillian and William Bresnahan, represented by Kathy Langenwalter Planner: Lauren Waterton Lauren Waterton gave an overview of the request and stated that it was in conformance with zoning with the exception of the side setback. She explained that some variance was necessary for the applicant to be able to put in this garage and that staff was recommending approval with three conditions. Kathy Langenwalter, representing the Bresnahans, explained that she would answer any questions. Greg Moffet asked for any public comment. Mel Brody, an adjacent property owner on the west side, stated that if built as proposed, it would continue the Loom of the building. He said that it was too tall and would block light. He said that if the garage goes in, it would be directly across from his front entryway and being 5' off the property line, it would throw a shadow across his entry. He said that this was a matter of light and that he was not happy about the garage into the encroachment. He stated that the other half duplex had received no notice of this and are very much against it. He went on to say there were one -car garages all along that street and that a one -car garage, with the proper setback, would make the light situation easier. He stated that this project was within 7 -8' of his house and that one of his bedrooms would look right into the wall of the garage. John Schofield was sympathetic with the neighbor, however, supportive of getting cars out of sight. John was not sure the existing tree should rule the design. Mel Brody stated that this was a rental property for 15 years and now the owner was moving in. He stated that the cars have been a problem over the years. Gene Uselton, though reluctant to cut the tree, stated that where the garage was proposed, he felt that the tree would probably die. Greg Amsden said the garage should be placed to minimize the encroachment and that he was not so attached to that tree. He did caution that with a one -car garage, the applicant could put paved parking on the west side of garage, which would give the adjacent property owner a car sitting in front of his house. Mel Brodie said that would not have the light impact. Greg Amsden suggested several pine trees as mitigation. Galen Aasland suggested the applicant coming back with the mitigation of trees. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes December 16, 1996 0 • • C • Diane Golden suggested moving the tree in order to help the neighbor and that she was in favor of moving the garage up. Henry Pratt agreed with everyone else that the tree was directing the design and that consideration should be given to moving the tree. Greg Moffet asked Kathy if her client had talked to the neighbor regarding a combined, shared solution of covered parking? Kathy Langenwalter said with a two -party wall the applicant could not build on the neighbor's property and would need a variance to do a 20' wide garage. Kathy said she was shocked that the Board would consider moving a tree this size. She said that it never occurred to the applicant to remove the tree and that the owners didn't want to move the tree. Kathy said she had no idea how the owners would perceive that suggestion. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant would consider condominiumized parking for both units, or one structure for both? Kathy Langenwalter said the owners liked the division of the property. Greg Moffet advised the applicant to look at alternatives and he then asked the applicant if they would want to table this. Diane Golden advised the applicant that moving it to the east would impact the neighbor. • Henry Pratt said he agreed with his fellow Commissioners. Greg Moffet said another layout would require cutting the tree. Henry Pratt said encroaching into the front setback may be a possibility. Greg Moffet asked if Kathy Langenwalter wanted to table this item. Kathy Langenwalter said, yes. John Schofield made a motion to table this item until January 13, 1997. Henry Pratt seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 -0. (Diane Golden was not present). 4. A request for a review of a new water storage tank, located on an unplatted parcel of land in East Vail, generally located southeast of 5004 Snowshoe Lane. Applicant: Eagle River Water and Sanitation District Planner: Russell Forrest Russ Forrest gave an overview of the request. He said that he saw no long -term environmental impacts and that it was positive for the public. He stated that fighting fires in the neighborhood was a safety issue and that staff recommended approval with four conditions. He said that this was located in a red avalanche zone and so removal of the existing tank was for safety reasons. He • explained that the new tank would be underground. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes December 16, 1996 7 Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. Mark Van Worstrand, an Engineer for the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, stated that he • was proceeding with the permitting process in order to have a seamless transition. He explained that the District had plans to rehabilitate the old tank, but couldn't do it until a new tank was constructed. Mark stated that there was a lack of storage and 1 -2 million gallons of storage was needed for the area, as well as the whole valley. Greg Moffet asked for any public comment. There was none. Galen Aasland said that if spruce trees were placed in front of the old tank, he had no problem with keeping the old tank. He would however, not like to see the street paved and asked staff about the water hazards? Russ Forrest stated that it wouldn't increase the hazards on adjacent property owners. Diane Golden said she would like to keep the existing tank if it could be proven safe and she proceeded to ask what would happen in the event of an avalanche. Mark Van Worstrand said numerous studies have been done regarding avalanches and as long as the tank is kept full, it would be strong enough to withstand an avalanche. Henry Pratt agreed with Galen that more water storage in East Vail was needed. Henry asked if it stayed, would leaving it full be enough mitigation for an avalanche? Mark Van Worstrand said the operational policy was to keep the tanks full. Henry Pratt mentioned that the staff memo.advocated taking the old tank out. Russ Forrest said the Fire Dept. didn't have an opinion, one way or the other. Henry Pratt said if the old tank was kept, then a control gate should be done. Mark Van Worstrand said there was a cellular site above the tank, so it would have to be worked out. John Schofield was not in favor of paving, but he was in favor of keeping the old tank and felt that mitigation could be done with some landscaping. Gene Uselton asked when construction was done couldn't it be used as a berm behind the old tank? Mark Van Worstrand said that would be possible, but because the two tanks were so close together, there would not be much opportunity to access the road. He said that it was a tight site, which didn't lend itself to grading of any significance. Greg Amsden did not want a paved road, but as natural as possible. He felt it should be gated and he wanted to keep the existing tank and have it improved with landscaping. He asked if the main flow would come out of the new tank? Mark Van Worstrand said service will come out of both tanks to fill and rise equally. Greg Amsden asked if the tank was ever empty during high times, such as Christmas etc. • Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes December 16, 1996 N. • Mark Van Worstrand said, no. Henry Pratt made a motion, in accordance with the staff memo, with the addition to the conditions that A should read that the old tank remain and be painted and that Russ Forrest require full landscaping and with the added conditions, E - that an access control gate be added and F - that the access road be made with as little improvement as practical. Greg Amsden seconded the motion. It passed unanimously by a vote of 7 -0. 5. A request for a worksession to discuss establishing a Special Development District overlay to the Austria Haus, located at 242 East Meadow Drive /on part of Tract C, Block 5 -D, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gordon Pierce Planner: George Ruther George Ruther gave an overview of the request in accordance with the staff memo. He advised the PEC to give some consideration to the deviation requested and also to keep in mind the real or perceived benefit of the proposed SDD. He said there was 29,735 sq. ft. of vacation ownership in the building. Greg Moffet stated that this was 206% of the permitted zoning. George Ruther said, according to staff's interpretation, if the lock -offs were treated as hotel • (accommodation) units, then the square footage proposed would seem reasonable. He said the proposed square footage was excessive, if- the lock -offs were excluded from the short -term rental. Henry Pratt asked George to read the list from the Zoning Code. What constitutes common area? George Ruther then proceeded to read from the Code the definition of a common area. • Greg Moffet asked for the applicant to comment. Gordon Pierce stated that when he began this project, he used the 1984 ordinance as a guideline to see how they could add quality warm pillows to this town. He said they did not look at specific numbers. He said that quality buildings require more space and the ordinances are outdated. He said he originally looked at the massing of the building and how it would fit into the Village. Greg Moffet said the numbers aren't,that out of whack. Gordon Pierce said the project was on the lower end of the margin of a good quality hotel. He felt it was not valid to compare this project to the Athletic Club, as it has failed under three ownerships. He said it was difficult to look at numbers objectively. Gordon said that he had corrected some of the- numbers on the staff memo and the valet parking had 40 regular parking spaces and 8 valet parking spaces. George Ruther said once you block regular spaces with valet parking, you then have 25 valet spaces and 23 regular spaces. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes December 16, 1996 E Gordon Pierce said the landscaping looks likes a low percentage, since we were landscaping outside of the project. • Greg Moffet asked for any public comment. Jim Lamont, representing the East Village Homeowner's Association (EVHA), said in looking at the comparison between the Vail Athletic Club, the Austria Haus and the Mountain Haus, there should be a rezoning of these three common properties. He said that the 1984 numbers were established by Larry Livingston, but now it makes sense to rezone blocks that share similar characteristics. He said there should be consistent treatment among properties regarding pay -in -lieu fees. He said this consistent treatment should be among these three properties and that it may make sense for the Vail Athletic Club to go to time - share. He thought a PA -1 Zone District was best for these properties and to entertain time - sharing for the Vail Athletic Club. Jim stated to apply time - sharing to the other PA Zone Districts was too risky. He advised the PEC to make sure that figures were accurate, as he was not sure of the appropriate mix. He said, regarding the design standpoint, that there needed to be more of a separation between the mass transit and pedestrian walkway and also more of a landscape separation that provided grades for the street to be closer to the building. Joseph Trelevin, representing the Village Center Association, had been concerned with the south and west setbacks, however he had been satisfied by Gordon Pierce. He said that Gordon assured us that there would be no overnight parking in front of the building. He said that Gordon had placed the trash area inside the building and that landscaping would be a joint effort between the buildings. He did express concerns after the most recent memo from staff regarding deliveries in the underground parking facility. He said that if trucks were required to go down the ramp, they would then have noise problems. George Ruther explained that loading and deliveries were a concern and the recommendation from • the PEC and staff was that deliveries be underground. He said that Gordon felt there would not be many deliveries and the front drop -off area was not good for deliveries. Greg Moffet said when you eliminate food and beverage, you eliminate deliveries by 70% and that it would not be in the club membership's best interest to have a lot of unloading by the front entrance. Dan Telleen, Karat's Jewelry Store owner next to the project, said loading and unloading deliveries will cause noise from motors running and exhaust outside of his door. He stated that most deliveries were by UPS. He said that garbage smells, promised by the applicant, were going to be out of site and garbage trucks would have to go down the ramp. Dan suggested rolling garbage containers out to the ramp. Dan said that Jan from Overland & Express thought that east of the west parking structure entrance the gate could be removed making it possible for trucks to unload. He said that many trucks park on the west hill to unload downhill and may be a solution with grading. Dan said he had a concern regarding the 71 parking spaces. George Ruther explained that the 71 parking space figure had lapsed from the 1984 proposal and that the applicant would build 48 parking spaces. Dan Telleen stated there already was a parking problem in Town and it was important from the retail sector that the parking be sufficient. He mentioned that people down valley say traffic has improved in their business because of parking and that locals don't come to Town because they can't park. He said that we were making ourselves unaccessible with 30 more spaces that don't exist. Dan felt that employee housing was important since more maids and shopkeepers were going to need to • Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes December 16, 1996 10 • park and live somewhere. He felt that the lack of housing and parking with this proposal was putting more pressure on problems that already exist. Mike Mollica explained that the applicant was not paying into the pay -in -lieu fund because they had met the parking requirement of 43 spaces by having 48 parking spaces. He said that a section of the Code provided for grandfathered spaces. Gordon Pierce addressed some of Dan's concerns by saying that you wouldn't need that many parking spaces for this kind of a building. He said the applicant would like to fill it up with high quality boutiques. Jim Lamont asked how you could have grandfathered parking spaces when you have spaces on site? Mike Mollica gave an example of the Athletic Club on page 12 of the staff memo. He said the existing development was shy 58 spaces and they were allowed have the deficit grandfathered. The Athletic Club, as approved by Council, was required by the ordinance to pay -in -lieu and that there was a precedent for a PA zoned property to pay -in -lieu. Dan Telleen stated that big trucks deliver to many small restaurants and when the parking is gone, someone will have to pay for it. Henry Pratt asked Joe Trelevin about the big trucks. He asked if the retail- oriented Village Center had infrequent deliveries? . Joe Treleven said the trucks service the restaurants and the WeRecycle business dumps broken glass, creating noise. He didn't want to create the same situation with the Austria Haus. Greg Amsden said autos come out of that building. Dan Telleen said trucks that are too big for the garage would unload for all the small restaurants, since it was so hard to get downtown. He thought recycle bins could go underground with the trash. Henry Pratt asked for the statistics on the occupancy rate of lock -offs . Bill Sullivan said there were 2 and 3- bedroom units with lock -offs. Henry Pratt said the 2- bedroom units were in demand, so the lock -offs attached to the 2- bedroom would rarely be rented. Henry asked how often they would be available? Bill Sullivan said, based on the sales tax revenue, that 25% of the time they would be available. He also said the fractional units would be available to rent, as well as the lock -off attached to the fractional units. Diane Golden asked how many 3- bedroom and 2- bedroom units there were? Bill Sullivan said there were 8 3- bedroom and 16 2- bedroom units. Galen Aasland asked about the accessing the parking garage under East Meadow Drive from the parking structure? • Gordon Pierce said it was not feasible. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes December 16, 1996 11 Greg Moffet asked about the current sizing of the hotel rooms. George Ruther said the hotel rooms were between 365 - 380 sq. ft. • Bill Sullivan said the Sonnenalp Hotel would provide the "new face" concern. Gordon Pierce said units would be rented through the pool or available for rental at all times. John Schofield asked what the relative rental occupancy was? Bill Sullivan said it was similar to the Sonnenalp and that rack rates should be similar. Greg Moffet stated that there would be no personalization in rooms, that the management chose the furnishings, thus increasing rentability. Gordon Pierce said retail transports their trash and use a huge compactor at the Bavaria Haus. John Schofield asked staff if we would be able to require more parking with an SDD? Mike Mollica said he was inclined to say yes, but he would need to research that. John Schofield said he wants to know if we were bound by the grandfather clause. He said he was still concerned with the bulk and mass. He said the market, not the PEC, needed to take care of warm pillows. Gene Uselton would like to see this project done and that he was in favor of it. Greg Amsden wanted the percentage of rented rooms equal to what is being replaced. He said that • from a lodging proposal standpoint, he felt comfortable that his questions were answered today. He still felt that the GRFA was too high and might be one area to trim. He was happy with the architecture. He asked about the roof differential and what would go on top of the building, since it was such a visible roofline. Gordon Pierce stated that equipment will be hidden in the tower and that the slope of the roof would hide plumbing, vents, etc. He said that some skylights would reduce the flat portion of the roof and that a sloping roof could hide everything. George Ruther said that prior to final review, Gordon would need to provide elevations illustrating vents, fans etc. Greg Amsden didn't agree with Jim Lamont's PA -1, as it was spot zoning for three buildings. He felt owners of other buildings should be allowed to come before the Town with the same request. Diane Golden expressed sympathy for Dan Telleen, regarding losing services in Town. She was nervous about allowing such great variances as it might set a precedence. Diane was impressed with this proposal and was in favor of it. Gordon Pierce said according to the Town plan, large buildings were to be located at the periphery of the core areas, with smaller buildings in Town. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes December 16, 1996 12 Galen Aasland was concerned with the size of the building, if it complies with development • standards and was consistent with other projects. He was concerned that the height of the roof blocks the view from the parking structure. He said that all the hotel units were on the least desirable north side of the building. He felt that the vacation units were worth a lot more making the hotel units second cousins. Galen had no problem with loading. Henry Pratt agreed that some of zoning quantities were out of date. He felt parking was an issue that needed more thought, but with shuttle services it may not be necessary. Henry said that retail was not catering to the locals, but to guests and because of that, will the retail survive the off- season. Henry said what bothered him most was the GRFA which lead to a building that was taller than it needed to be. He felt the GRFA was beyond what should be granted in this case. He said the site was a portal to the Village and would block the view. Henry noticed that this week another vacation unit had been added. Henry wanted to transfer the additional unit to hotel space and he agreed with Galen about sticking the hotel rooms on the north side. Greg Moffet agreed with the hotel rooms being in the worst possible location. He said the bulk and mass were doubling what zoning permits. He said that doubling the zoning on the property, while at the same time creating a parking problem in the Village, increasing low -wage employees without any potential for employee housing and decreasing the number of hotel rooms was the tail wagging the dog. He said a financing tool was a necessity, but what we had here was an 80 -20 mix and the financing tool doesn't have to be 80 %. He was uncomfortable with the allocation of the square footage. He wanted more AU's and to see some of them in better locations. He stated that there was a parking issue and an employee housing issue. Gordon Pierce stated the existing Bavaria Haus faces the north and used bay windows to permit looking east and west with up and down views. He said in terms of quality, warm pillows, this • project would have almost 4 times the nights occupied from what exists now. Gordon disagreed with the view corridor and said the view corridor was when people were coming down the steps and not when they were on ground level. He said that the Village could clearly be seen from two miles away. He asked for a number since everyone felt he should cut back in square footage. Galen Aasland stated that the existing building had 11,000 sq. ft. of hotel rooms and he advised the applicant to not go less with this request. He said the PEC can't approve it with less hotel room space. Galen told the applicant if the need for 141% could be demonstrated then show why. Gordon Pierce said the Town asked for more warm pillows. Greg Moffet asked how they figured 25% of the lock -offs were AU's? Cynthia Thornberg said the 25% number came up with no basis, since there was no precedent anywhere else. Galen Aasland said he realized the Athletic Club had gone through reorganizations because of financial difficulties, however, with the financial incentives timesharing brings to this project, it needs to be brought back to the scale of the Athletic Club. Gordon Pierce stated that the Athletic Club had lost money over the years. Greg Amsden said the Vail Athletic Club was a remodel; this was a bulldozed property. Greg Amsden said we can't bring economics into the review. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes December 16, 1996 13 Bill Sullivan said there were extremely few time -share properties that had hotel rooms. He said that most people at this high -end market level don't offer them in a rental pool. Greg Moffet said he needed more information. Greg Amsden suggested to the applicant to take a Beaver Creek project and use the numbers for comparison. Henry Pratt said he wanted the preservation of the existing 11,000 square feet of hotel rooms. He also wanted to see some real numbers on the percentage of lock -offs. Henry Pratt thought 3 vacation units could be turned back into hotel rooms. He had a hard time with doubling the GRFA, as it could be perceived as a grant of special privilege. Gordon Pierce asked if it would be acceptable to reduce the GRFA by 20% entirely out of the fractional units? Henry Pratt said, no, that it would have to be proportionate. Gene Uselton said he doesn't understand the distinction between hotel rooms and time -share users. Susan Connelly said this project was a public benefit, as the revitalization is in of itself new. She said different types of lodging projects were requested and adopted by the Town Council. Jim Lamont advised establishing view corridors at the west end of the parking structure. He said there were plenty of lock -offs to do a test, which will give a degree of comfort with the numbers. He told the applicant that they had to provide the data, since they were first through the chute. He said • the spot zoning was inconsistent, but there was no inconsistency with the GRFA. He said GRFA was a general tool for economic redevelopment. He said that so far the SDD was a miserable failure, as it gave neighbors no idea if they were being treated fairly. Dan Telleen noted that the owner's of the time -share units dues would be paid out of state and therefore, not subject to the Town's sales tax. Dan still had concerns with making it tough for people coming into Town Gordon Pierce proceeded to show old photos of the existing alley and how the project would turn this alley into a public benefit. 6. A request for an amendment to a condition of approval for the Town of Vail Public Works shops expansion, pertaining to employee housing, located at 1309 Vail Valley Drive /on an unplatted parcel, north of Vail Village, 8th Filing. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Andy Knudtsen Andy Knudtsen gave an overview of the request. Susie Hervert, representing Public Works, said that in early spring the employee housing would be constructed and that Public Works was fully committed to see it go. • Planning and Enviromnental Commission Minutes December 16, 1996 14 Andy Knudtsen said completion would be November 1997, with seasonal employees, such as bus • drivers, as the group being targeted for occupancy. He stated that final approval would be made by the PEC, but that Council could call it up. • Susie Hervert said Council was fully aware of this proposal and committed to the project. Greg Moffet asked how many units there would be. Andy Knudtsen said that density would be set by the architects and there would be a clear buffer between the industrial area and the residential area. Galen Aasland thought seasonal housing was the hardest type to fill up. Henry Pratt said it was great to see the Town doing more than the PEC asked. He would like to change the wording on the 3rd condition of approval from a "TCO" to a "CO." John Schofield asked for more information on the seasonal aspect and also on the location. Andy Knudtsen said the season would be for 6 months from November to April for most of the units. Some would extend for a year, but he said writing leases for longer than 1 year was not anticipated. He stated a critical goal was for winter staff. Susan Connelly said there was also a real market in the summer. John Schofield said he was supportive of this proposal and the location was fine. However, he said a real bus stop was needed and reminded everyone that any Town of Vail project should be treated as an outside developer. Gene Uselton asked if there would be efficiency apartments? Andy Knudtsen said from having toured other developments, 450 sq. ft seemed to be a good size for a single person to live in. From surveys, storage facilities were rated most important, with minimal kitchen facilities. Gene Uselton asked if these units would be strictly for just one person. Andy Knudtsen said 75% of the units would be for one person and 25% of the units would be larger to accommodate a couple. Susan Connelly noted that details would be worked out later. Greg Moffet said it would not be a good neighborhood for kids. Greg Amsden asked about manufactured housing. Andy Knudtsen said teams would be formed and may include reps from manufactured housing. He stated that there was a range of quality with manufactured housing, very personalized and of excellent quality. Susie Hervert said many options are being looked at. To access manufactured housing through the tunnel and berm would be difficult, but they would consider every option. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes December 16, 1996 15 Greg Amsden asked if a parking analysis had been done. Andy Knudtsen said sketches have been done with different parking solutions. He said another • possibility was off -site parking with bus service. Greg Amsden asked what the Council had budgeted. Andy Knudtsen said that the project was to be design- driven, and that the budget was determined using a low sq. footage cost figure, but a high total square footage figure. Susie Hervert said a geotechnical survey would be done for the boundaries. Greg Amsden asked about property management. Andy Knudtsen said outside services. Susan Connelly said management services were budgeted for 1998. Greg Amsden again said this should be treated evenly across the board, with no advantages to the Town. Greg Moffet was curious about regulations prohibiting families. He felt the parking situation would be used late at night. He suggested scheduling a bus before and after work. He reminded the Town to be prepared for the public's concern regarding this use of public land, using taxpayer money. He also said there would be objections, particularly in light of the fact that the Town is being more flexible with what is going on the land, i.e., manufactured housing. Greg advised the Town to prepare to address this argument. He then said he was in favor of this and that requiring the Town • to house its own employees was only fair. Galen Aasland asked about recreation facilities or washing /drying facilities within the project. He felt 450 sq. ft. was too small to have employees be shut inside all winter and would get cabin fever. He said the Town should look to do this like any other applicant and he felt that Andy, as head of housing, should sit in the audience. Susan Connelly explained that Andy would be the housing advocate and that a planner would work with this proposal. She said they were finding ways to foster a climate that promoted affordable housing. She said in the future, local's housing may become a different element than private housing. Galen Aasland made a motion to modify the condition of approval and to change the wording from TCO to CO and to require a building permit to be pulled by 7/31/97. Henry Pratt seconded the motion. It passed unanimously by a vote of 6 -0 -1. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes December 16, 1996 16 • • rir • 7. A request to amend Sections 18.27.030, 18.29.030, and 18.30.030 of rthe Zoning Code to allow van storage /transportation - related businesses in the Commercial Core 3, Arterial Business, and Heavy Service Zone Districts as a conditional use and add Sections. 18.04.415 and 18.04.385 providing definitions for vehicle storage yard and transportation business. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Dominic Mauriello Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the staff memo. He said that staff was recommending approval to the PEC. John Schofield asked, based on the 4 criteria, if the percentage of existing parking lots complied br did they have to make changes to the existing lots? Dominic Mauriello said it depended on if the area had surplus parking, or not. Mike Mollica stated we would look at each location on a case -by -case basis. Dominic Mauriello said some modifications to the site would have to be done. Greg Moffet had some changes in the conditional uses. He said No. 2, on the second line, to change the period to a comma and strike "screening shall' on page 3. Gene Uselton asked if CME would come back to the PEC for permission? 0 Mike Mollica said, yes. 0 Greg Amsden had no comments. Galen Aasland would like to put a limit of 10 vehicles. He would hate to see 20 Vans to Vail in a lot and that the applicant would need to prove there was a compelling need. Mike Mollica advised if the lot could be adequately screened, then the PEC should approve it. Galen Aasland said he would hate to see a fleet of vans. Susan Connelly said there was not that much excess property, so your concern was self - regulating. Mike Mollica said with the impacts to adjacent properties, the PEC would still have to deal with it. Greg Moffet said you could always put a sunset on a conditional use permit, or call -it up. Henry Pratt had nothing to add. Greg Moffet said we would be requiring someone to spend more money on screening and this would be a benefit, particularly behind the West Vail Lodge. Greg Amsden made a motion for a recommendation of approval to Council with the following text changes: to delete "screening shall' from No. 2 and combine sentences to read as "properties, consisting of landscaping." Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes December 16, 1996 17 Gene Uselton seconded the motion. ')1 Ci: It passed unanimously by a vote of 6 -0. -'ig gri3 ;. 8. A request for a variance from Section 18.58.320, Satellite Dish Antennas,D1, 3, 4, 6, to allow two satellite dishes to be installed at the northwest corner of the Vail Commons property, located at 2099 N. Frontage Road West/ Vail Commons. l Applicant: KTUN Radio Planner: Tammie Williamson TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 13, 1997 9. A request to amend the Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan and adopt the Gerald R. Ford Park Management Plan. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Larry Grafel, Pam Brandmeyer, Todd Oppenheimer. Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 13, 1997 10. A request to amend section 16.20.020 and to add section 16.04.065 of the Sign Code to allow for electronic signs as Public Information Signs. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented by Joe Macy Planner: Dirk Mason TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 13, 1997 Greg Amsden made a motion to table items 8, 9 and 10 until January 13, 1997. The motion was seconded by Henry Pratt. It passed unanimously by a vote of 6 -0 -1. 11. Information Update: `Appointment of one PEC representative to the Art in Public Places Board (AIPP). This Board meets twice a month (2nd & 4th Thursdays) from 8:30 am to approximately 10:30 am. The duration of the term would be consistent with the member's PEC term duration. Greg Moffet asked for a volunteer to serve on the AIPP Board. He then said to wait until the next meeting, as Diane Golden was not present. 12. Approval of November 11, 1996, November 25, 1996 and December 9, 1996 minutes. Galen Aasland and Henry Pratt had changes to the 11/11/96 minutes. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes December 16, 1996 18 • is • Greg Amsden made a motion to approve the November 11, 1996 minutes as changed. Galen Aasland seconded the motion. It passed unanimously by a vote of 6 -0 -1. Greg Amsden made a motion to approve the November 25, 1996 minutes as read. The motion was seconded by John Schofield, The motion passed by a vote of 3 -0 -2. Henry Pratt and Galen Aasland abstained, as they were not present at the meeting. Greg Amsden made a motion to approve the December 6, 1996 minutes as read. Galen Aasland seconded the motion. It passed unanimously by a' vote of 6 -0 -1. Henry Pratt made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Gene Uselton seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 6 -0 -1. 0 The meeting adjourned at 7:30 pm. i. f- ;> rz Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes December 16, 1996 19